STATE  NORMAL  SCHOOL 

LOS  ANGELES,  CAlIiOJtl'4iA 


C 


HANDWRITING 


By  EDWARD  L.  THORNDIKE 

Professor  of  Educational  Psychology,  Teachers  College 
Columbia  University 

2S '/  i^-b 


Reprinted   from  Teachers  College  Record,   Vol.    II,   No.   2,   March,    1910 


SECOND  IMPRESSION 


PUBLISHED  BY 

(Statins  (EuUpgp.  Ql0lumbta  ItntupraUy 

NEW  YORK  CITY 

1912 


Copyright  1910 
Copyright  1912 


CONTENTS 

SECTION  PAGE 

1 .  Introduction i 

Part  I.     The  Measurement  of  the  Quality  of  Handwriting 

2.  The   Construction   of   a   Scale   for   Quality   of   Handwritings   by 

Children  in  Grades  5  to  8 4 

3.  The  Nature  of  the  Scale,  including  Qualities  or  Degrees  of  Merit 

from  that  of  Copy-Book  Models  down 7 

4.  Criticisms   of  the   Scale 8 

5.  The  Uses  of  the  Scale 17 

6.  A  Scale  for  Quality  in  Adult  Women's  Writing 19 

7.  The  Derivation  of  the  Scale 24 

Part  H.     The  Speed  and  Quality  of  Handwriting  in 
Seven   School  Systems* 

8.  Diflferences  between  Systems . . . '. 29 

9.  The  Relation  of  Differences  in  Results  to  Differences  in  Means 

and  Methods  of  Teaching  Handwriting 32 

10.  Differences  between  Individuals  within  the  Same  School  System..  33 

11.  The  Relation  Amongst  Individuals  between  Speed  and  Quality..  35 

12.  The  Relation  of  the  Quality  of  Slow  Writing  to  the  Quality  of 

Rapid  W'riting  by  the  Same  Individual 36 

13.  Miscellaneous  Comments  36 

14.  A  Scale  Based  on  Equally  Often  Noted  Diflferences  in  Quality. . .  40 

Scale  A between  pp.  10  and  1 1 

Scale  B "         "    24  and  25 

Scale  C ''         "    40  and  41 


R 


w 


^5^ 


/C^ 


3 


HANDWRITING 

Section   i.       Introduction 

Handwriting  may  profitably  be  studied  from  three  points  of 
view : — that  of  the  physiology  and  psychology  of  movement,^ 
that  of  the  part  it  may  play  in  the  intelligently  directed  activities 
of  child  life  in  schools,-  and  that  of  the  direct  examination  of 
the  quality  and  speed  of  handwriting  secured  by  various  forms 
of  school  training.  But  to  any  study  of  it  there  is  one  very 
desirable  preliminary  —  some  means  of  measuring  the  quality 
of  a  sample  of  handwriting. 

At  present  we  can  do  no  better  than  estimate  a  handwriting 
as  very  bad,  bad,  good,  very  good,  or  extremely  good,  knowing 
only  vaguely  what  we  mean  thereby,  running  the  risk  of  shift- 
ing our  standards  with  time,  'and  only  by  chance  meaning  the 
same  by  a  word  as  some  other  student  of  the  facts  means  by  it. 
We  are  in  the  condition  in  which  students  of  temperature  were 
before  the  discovery  of  the  thermometer  or  any  other  scale  for 
measuring  temperature  beyond  the  very  hot,  hot,  warm,  luke- 
warm, and  the  like,  of  subjective  opinion.  We  opine  roughly 
that,  at  a  fairly  rapid  rate,  writing-movements  in  which  the  fore- 
arm shares  will  produce  a  better  quality  of  handwriting  than 
movements  confined  more  exclusively  to  the  thumb  and  fingers, 
but  no  one  could  estimate  with  surety  and  precision  hozu  much 
better  the  best  rapid  "  free-arm  "  writing  is  than  the  best  equally 
rapid  "  finger-movement  "  writing.  We  opine  roughly  that  drills 
in  which  good  writing  serves  some  end  of  consequence  to  the 

^_No  attempt  is  made  in  tiiis  article  to  report  any  results  of  physio- 
logical or  psychological  analysis  of  the  behavior  involved  in  hand- 
writing. The  student  of  this  aspect  of  the  subject  should  consult 
especially  the  investigations  of  Preyer.  Judd  and   Freeman. 

°_  No  attempt  is  made  in  this  article  to  report  the  experiences  or 
opinions  of  students  of  education  with  respect  to  the  utilization  of 
the  original  tendencies  of  children  so  as  to  secure  a  rational  and 
economical  cultivation  of  handwriting  as  an  expressive  art. 

I 


2  Handzvriting 

children  will  be  more  efficient  than  drills  for  mere  penmanship, 
but  no  one  could  estimate  hozv  much  more  efficient  they  will  be. 
We  know  that  some  schools  secure  better  writing  at  a  given 
speed  than  do  other  schools,  but  no  one  could  tell  hozv  much 
better  in  any  terms  sure  of  understanding  and  agreement ;  for 
we  have  no  scale  to  measure  handwriting  by.  No  pupil,  teacher, 
or  superintendent  of  schools  knows  how  well  any  child,  class, 
or  group  of  children  writes  in  anything  approaching  the  sense 
in  which  we  know  how  hot  any  liquid  is  or  how  long  a  wire  is. 

The  main  purposes  of  this  monograph  are  to  describe  the 
means  by  which  a  graphometer  or  scale  for  handwriting  may  be 
made,  to  present  such  a  scale  for  the  handwriting  of  children 
in  grades  5,  6,  7,  and  8,  to  explain  how  such  a  scale  is  to  be 
used,  to  present  a  similar  scale  for  adult  women's  handwriting, 
and  to  mention  some  of  the  facts  and  questions  of  importance 
to  which  the  discovery  and  use  of  these  scales  have  led. 

Many  circumstances  have  combined  to  prevent  me  from  giving 
at  this  time  anything  like  a  perfect  scale.  The  individual  differ- 
ences amongst  competent  judges  in  rating  any  example  are  so 
great  that  to  get  for  it  a  measure  accurate  within  one  per  cent  of 
the  difference  in  merit  between  the  best  and  the  worst  of  gram- 
mar-school (i.e.,  grades  5  to  8)  writing  requires  that  at  least  200 
judges  rate  it.  I  have  not  been  able  to  command  the  services 
of  so  many.  For  the  greatest  practical  convenience  a  scale 
should  have  for  any  quality  samples  of  all  the  common  styles 
of  children's  writings,  and  should  include  about  ten  qualities 
differing  each  from  the  next  by  equal  steps — equal,  that  is, 
within,  say,  four  per  cent  of  a  step  or  one  half  of  one  per 
cent  of  the  difference  between  the  worst  and  the  best  grammar- 
school  writing.  But  to  get  such  samples  one  would  need  to  have 
several  thousand  samples  of  each  style  of  writing,  and  to  have 
about  half  a  million  ratings  made.  This  means  roughly  four 
thousand  hours  of  labor.  The  final  selections  of  samples  for 
the  scale  should  properly  be  made  from  very  many  printed 
reproductions  such  as  will  form  the  scale  itself.  The  cost  has 
prohibited  me  from  making  many  of  these. 

The  scale  is  presented  now,  in  spite  of  its  imperfections,  for 
these  reasons :    It  is  the  result  of  some  twenty  thousand  ratings 


Introduction  3 

and  ensures  measurements  far  more  accurate  than  anyone  could 
make  without  it.  For  the  present  needs  of  school  practice 
and  educational  research,  a  very  precise  instrument  for  measur- 
ing handwriting  is  not  required.  The  best  way  to  get  a  more 
perfect  scale  is  by  the  use  of  this  one  as  a  starting  point. 

This  scale  is  then  offered  as  a  preliminary  scale  w'hose  imper- 
fections the  maker  is,  perhaps,  more  conscious  of  than  any  critic 
will  be.  I  beg  the  reader  to  bear  this  in  mind,  since,  for  the 
sake  of  simplicity  in  description  in  w'hat  follow^s,  I  shall  not  in 
each  case  state  the  fact  that  a  quality  or  point  on  the  scale  is 
determined  only  to  a  certain  approximation,  and  the  fact  that  the 
differences  between  successive  qualities  are  only  approximately 
equal. 


PART   I 

The  Measurement  of  the  Quality  of  Handwriting 

Section  2.  The  Construction  of  a  Scale  for  Quality  of  Hand- 
writings of  Children  in  Grades  5  to  8 

If  one  selects  from  children's  written  work  1000  samples  rang- 
ing from  the  best  to  the  worst  handwriting  found  in  grades  5 
to  8  and  tries  to  rank  these  1000  samples  in  order  of  merit  for 
handwriting,  one  finds  that  he  cannot  make  1000  such  ranks. 
Some  of  the  handwritings  will  be  indistinguishable  in  "  good- 
ness "  or  "  quality  "  or  "  merit."  Nor  can  one  make  100  such 
ranks.  Nor  can  one  make  40.  One  can  make  about  20,  but  if 
he  so  ranks  the  samples  a  number  of  times  he  gets  substantially 
the  same  average  result  as  he  gets  when  he  ranks  them  a  number 
of  times  in  10  or  11  groups.  To  get  an  individual's  judgment 
of  the  relative  merits  of  the  1000  samples  it  is  sufficient  to  have 
him  rank  them  in  10  or  11  groups  three  or  four  times.  If  he 
grades  in  10  groups  and  tries  to  make  the  difference  in 
"  goodness  "  or  "  quality  "  or  "  merit  "  all  equal, — to  make,  that 
is,  the  sample  he  puts  in  the  highest  group  (call  it  11)  as  much 
superior  to  those  in  the  next  highest  group  (call  it  10)  as  the 
latter  are  to  those  he  puts  in  the  second  from  the  highest  group 
(call  it  9),  etc.,  etc., — we  have  in  the  average^  result  of  his 
groupings  his  judgment  of  the  relative  merits  of  the  samples  in 
a  specially  convenient  form.  For  instance,  if  he  grades  sample 
217  as  in  group  5  three  times,  as  in  group  4  once,  and  as  in 
group  6  once,  and  grades  sample  218  as  in  group  6  three  times, 
in  group  5  once,  and  in  group  7  once,  he  judges  218  to  be  "  i  " 
better  than  217,  "  i  "  being,  in  the  individual's  judgment,  one 
tenth  of  the  difference  between  group  i  and  group  11. 

If  thirty  or  forty  individuals  chosen  from  competent  judges 
of  handwriting  thus  judge  the  1000  samples,  the  average^  of  all 


'  Except  for  certain   factors   which  will   be   described  in   section  7. 
4 


The  Measurement  of  the  Quality  of  Handivriting  5 

their  gradings  give  approximately  the  relative  merit  of  each 
sample  in  the  judgment  of  competent  judges  in  general.  If 
they  grade  sample  317  in  group  3  two  times,  in  group  4  five 
times,  in  group  5  thirteen  times,  in  group  6  thirteen  times,  in 
group  7  five  times,  and  in  group  8  two  times,  their  average  or 
median  grade  for  it  is  5.5.  If  their  average  or  median  grade 
for  sample  318  is  6.4,  they  esteem  318  as  .9  better  than  317. 
The  .9  means,  in  their  judgment,  nine  tenths  of  one  tenth  of  the 
difference  between  grade  one  and  grade  eleven. 

If  now  from  all  the  1000  samples  we  could  find  some  w^hich 
were  graded  exactly  i,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  9,  10,  and  11  by  the 
average  or  median^  judgment  of  30  or  40  competent  judges,  each 
grading  the  set  into  groups  i  to  11  by  what  he  thinks  are  equal 
steps  in  merit,  we  would  have  a  very  useful  scale  of  merit  in 
handwriting.  It  would  include  all  grades  from  the  worst  to 
the  best  and  would  proceed  by  what  were,  by  the  average  com- 
petent opinion,  equal  steps.  Or  if  we  could  find  some  graded 
1.5,  2.4,  3.3,  4.2,  5.1,  6.0,  6.9,  7.8,  8.7,  9.6,  and  10.5  we  would 
have  a  scale  nearly  as  useful.  It  would  not  be  so  likely  to  in- 
clude the  very  worst  and  very  best  samples,  but  would  proceed 
by  equal  steps,  as  before. 

The  scale  which  I  shall  proceed  to  describe  was  obtained  by  a 
method  in  principle  the  same  as  the  above. 

Such  a  scale  could  be  got  in  a  different  way,  as  follows :  Sup- 
pose competent  judges  to  compare  each  sample  with  every  other, 
stating  in  each  case  which  was  better.  If  then  w^e  picked  out 
samples  a,  h,  c,  d,  etc.,  such  that  a  was  judged  better  than  h, 
just  as  often  as  h  was  judged  better  than  c,  and  just  as  often  as 
c  was  judged  better  than  d,  and  so  on,  we  could  have,  in  samples 
a,  b,  c,  d,  etc.,  a  scale  by  equal  steps,  if  two  other  conditions  were 
fulfilled  by  them.  The  first  of  these  conditions  would  be  that  a 
should  not  be  judged  better  than  b  and  worse  than  b  equally 
often.  For  if  it  were,  a  would  be  equal  to  b,  b  to  c,  e  to  d,  and 
so  on,  and  we  would  have  no  extent  to  our  scale.  The  second 
of  these_£onditions  would  be  that  a  should  not  ahvays  be  judged 
better  than  b.  For,  if  it  were,  it  might  be  just  enough  better 
to  barely  be  so  judged,  or  it  might  be  very,  very  much  better. 


^  Except  for  certain  factors  which  will  be  described  in  section  7. 


6  Handzvriting 

Only  if  differences  are  not  always  noticed  can  we  say  that  dif- 
ferences equally  often  noticed  are  equal.  But  if  we  had,  as 
a  result  of  the  judgments,  facts  like  those  below,  we  could  say 
that  a,  b,  c,  d,  etc.,  represented  samples  of  writing  progressing 
by  equal  steps  of  difference  in  quality. 

looo  comparisons  of  a,  b,  c,  d,  etc.,  being  made : 

a  was  judged  better  than  b  in  y^^  per  cent.,  equal  to  &  in  ii 
per  cent.,  and  worse  than  b  in  i6  per  cent,  of  the  judgments. 

b  was  judged  better  than  c  in  73  per  cent.,  equal  to  <:  in  11 
per  cent.,  and  worse  than  c  in  16  per  cent,  of  the  judgments, 

c  was  judged  better  than  d  in  73  per  cent.,  equal  to  &  in  11 
per  cent.,  and  worse  than  &  in  16  per  cent,  of  the  judgments,  and 
so  on  for  d-e,  c-f, n. 

The  scale  which  I  shall  describe  was  tested  throughout  by  this 
second  method.  The  two  methods  do  not  give  results  that  corre- 
spond exactly.  The  variations  follow  this  rule :  Judges  will 
notice  differences  between  poor  samples  when  they  compare 
them  directly  one  with  another  which  they  would  not  count  in 
rating  them  by  a  mental  scale.  For  example,  suppose  samples 
a,  b,  c,  and  d  to  be  rated  10,  9,  3,  and  2  by  comparison  with  a 
mental  scale  of  eleven  grades  by  equal  steps.  The  percentage 
of  judges  regarding  10  as  better  than  9  will  be  smaller  than  that 
regarding  3  as  better  than  2. 

Since  we  get  two  different  scales  by, the  two  methods,  there 
are  four  alternatives.  We  may  adopt  one  or  the  other  or  com- 
bine them,  or  give  the  results  by  both  methods.  I  shall  take 
the  latter  alternative,  but  shall  at  this  point  present  only  the  scale 
as  derived  by  the  first  method.  In  a  later  section  (Section  12) 
the  scale  is  derived  by  the  second  method  will  be  presented. 

The  scale  given  here  is  then  a  scale  in  which  the  steps  of  dif- 
ference are  equal  in  the  sense  of  being  called  equal  by  competent 
judges.  Equal  will  mean  just  this  in  the  next  three  sections. 
They  are  not  equal  in  the  sense  of  being  equally  often  noticed 
when  the  single  question  "  better  or  worse,"  is  answered  for 
each  sample  in  connection  with  every  other  sample.  The  dif- 
ferences in  the  upper  part  of  the  scale  would  be  less  often  so 
noticed  than  those  in  its  lowest  third. 


The  Measurement  of  the  Quality  of  Handwriting  7 

Section  5.    Tlie  Nature  of  the  Scale 

Scale  A  is  the  scale  for  merit  of  the  handwriting  of  children 
of  grades  5  to  8.  It  is  not  a  scale  of  merit  of  the  writings  of 
children  of  grades  i  to  4  or  of  the  writings  of  boys  and  girls  of 
high-school  age.  It  can,  however,  be  more  or  less  well  used 
for  such  cases  until  we  get  more  appropriate  scales.  Each  set 
of  samples  represents  a  point  on  this  scale. 

The  use  of  7,  8,  9,  10,  11,  12,  13,  14,  15,  16,  and  17  for  these 
qualities  of  handwriting  means,  first  of  all,  that  14  is  as  much 
better  than  13,  as  13  is  than  12;  that  13  is  as  much  better  than  12, 
as  12  is  than  11,  and  so  on.  In  the  second  place  it  means  that 
quality  14  is  two  times  as  far  above  o  merit  in  handwriting  as 
quality  7  is ;  that  quality  16  is  twice  as  far  above  o  merit  in  hand- 
writing as  quality  8  is,  and  so  on.  Zero  merit  is  defined  roughly 
as  writing  as  bad  as  sample  140  (see  page  16),  as  a  hand- 
writing, recognizable  as  such,  but  of  absolutely  no  merit  as  hand- 
writing. The  use  of  several  samples  under  one  quality  means 
that  those  samples  are  of  equal  merit.  The  scale  includes  sam- 
ples of  as  many  different  styles  as  could  be  obtained,  so  that  in 
using  the  scale  the  merit  of  any  sample  of  any  style  of  writing 
can  be  quickly  ascertained  by  comparison  with  the  scale.  The 
scale  extends  in  actual  samples  by  children  from  nearly  the 
worst  writing^  of  fourth-grade  children  (quality  5)  to  nearly  the 
best  writing  of  eighth-grade  children  (quality  17).  Quality  7  is 
nearly  the  worst  writing  of  fifth-grade  children. 

The  scale  includes  a  sample  of  a  copy-book  model  which  is 
rated  by  competent  judges  as  of  approximately  quality  18,  two 
samples  of  fourth-grade  writing  which  are  judged  to  be  approxi- 
mately of  qualities  6  and  5,  and  a  very  bad  writing,  arti- 
ficially produced,  which  is  rated  by  competent  judges  as  of  ap- 
jiroximately  quality  4.  The  scale  thus  extends  from  a  quality 
better  than  which  no  pupil  is  expected  to  produce,  down  to  a 
quality  so  bad  as  to  be  intolerable,  and  probably  almost  never 
found,  in  school  practice  in  the  grammar  grades. 

If  one  had  a  finer  scale,  its  use  would  give  but  slightly  more 
accurate  results,  and  would  require  more  practice  and  more  time. 


*  In  a  formal  exercise  in  writing  at  their  "  natural  "  rate. 


8  Handwriting 

Any  specimen  of  handwriting  is  measured  by  this  scale  by  put- 
ting it  alongside  the  scale,  as  it  were,  and  seeing  to  what  point  on 
the  scale  it  is  nearest.  Thus,  the  sample  on  page  9  (sample  9)  is 
measured  by  comparing  it  with  those  of  ScaleA.  I  judge  it  to  be 
between  quality  15  and  quality  14  and  assign  it  the  measure  14 
rather  than  any  other  unit  measure  of  the  scale.  If  one  wishes  to 
measure  more  finely  than  to  units,  he  can  add  or  subtract  a  frac- 
tion according  as  the  sample  to  be  measured  seems  better  or 
worse  than  the  quality  of  the  scale  to  which  it  is  nearest. 

The  sample  to  be  measured  should,  for  convenience,  be  exam- 
ined with  the  entire  scale  in  view.  If  the  scale's  samples  are 
arranged  in  order  on  a  table  or  against  a  wall,  the  examined 
sample  is  easily  compared  with  them.  The  measurer  then  de- 
cides what  quality  of  the  scale  the  sample  possesses  and  records 
the  measure.  The  measurer  should  be,  of  course,  careful  not  to 
decide  its  grade  because  of  its  likeness  in  style,  but  only  because 
of  its  likeness  in  quality  to  some  sample  of  the  scale.  If,  for 
instance,  one  has  a  pronounced  vertical  that  is  really  of  quality  7, 
one  must  not  call  it  quality  8,  because  it  is  in  style  more  like  sam- 
ple 14  than  like  the  sample  of  quality  7.  The  measure  may  be 
made  more  and  more  accurate  by  having  other  judges  also 
measure,  each  always  in  ignorance  of  the  ratings  given  by  the 
others.  In  default  of  other  judges,  the  measure  may  be  made 
more  accurate  by  rating  the  sample  two  or  more  times,  each  time 
in  ignorance  of  the  ratings  previously  given.  An  individual  may 
be  measured  more  accurately  by  using  several  samples  of  his 
writing,  each  being  rated  in  ignorance  of  the  ratings  given  to  the 
other  sample. 

Section  4.     Criticisms  of  the  Scale 

The  scale  has,  as  previously  noted,  some  defects.  First  of  all, 
not  all  styles  of  writing  are  represented  on  the  scale,  much  less  at 
each  point  of  quality  on  it.  For  example,  we  have  no  pronounced 
backhand  writings  of  certain  qualities  and  no  very  pronounced 
forward  slant  of  certain  qualities.  There  are  hardly  any  mark- 
edly angular  writings  on  the  scale.  This  defect  can  be  at  any 
time  remedied  by  securing  enough  samples  of  children's  writing 
of  the  missing  sorts  at  approximately  the  qualities  in  question. 


The  Measurement  of  the  Quality  of  Handwriting  9 


-^ 


I  -(^ 


•3 


^    ^ 


^ 
^ 


b 


c>= 


10  Handwriting 

selecting,  with  the  aid  of  thirty  or  forty  competent  judges,  sam- 
ples whose  merit  is  exactly  8  or  lo  or  12  or  14  as  the  case  may 
be,  and  adding  these  to  the  scale.  I  shall  be  grateful  to  any  one 
who  sends  me  collections  of  children's  handwritings  of  styles  not 
represented  in  the  scale. 

Each  such  sample  should  be  accompanied  by  a  statement  of  all 
the  grades  assigned  to  it  on  our  scale  by  at  least  ten  or  twelve 
competent  observers,  each  of  w4iom  measures  it  with  the  scale 
and  rates  it  in  complete  ignorance  of  the  ratings  given  by  all  the 
other  judges.  It  is  desirable,  though  not  necessary,  that  the 
writings  be  on  unruled  paper. 

In  the  second  place,  the  qualities  below  5  and  above  17  should 
perhaps  be  represented  in  the  scale  by  actual  children's  writings. 
This  defect  could  be  remedied  by  collecting  children's  handwrit- 
ings that  were  superlatively  bad  and  superlatively  good.  I  shall 
be  grateful  to  anyone  who  sends  me  samples  of  children's  writing 
which  are  notably  better  than  quality  17  or  notably  worse  than 
quality  5. 

In  the  third  place,  although  I  have  so  far  spoken  of  the  quali- 
ties 5,  6,  7,  8,  9,  10,  etc.,  as  if  they  might  be  absolutely  these 
amounts — as  if  the  13's  might  be  all  absolutely  equal  in  merit  and 
all  absolutely  halfway  between  any  one  of  the  12's  and  any  one 
of  the  14's — this  is  not  exactly  the  case.  As  was  noted  on  page 
3,  the  scale  is  only  approximate.  16  on  the  scale  does  not 
pretend  to  mean  16.00000,  but  between  15.9  and  16.1.  8  does  not 
pretend  to  mean  8.0,  but  between  7.9  and  8.1.  And  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  although  I  have  had  a  thousand  samples  graded  and  have 
chosen  as  wisely  as  I  could,  some  of  the  samples  do  vary  in  merit 
from  7,  8,  9,  10,  etc.,  by  more  than  .1  plus  or  minus.  Even  after 
one  has  picked  samples  that  vary  only  that  much,  the  relations 
may  be  altered  in  the  process  of  making  the  electrotypes  from 
which  the  scale  is  printed  or  in  the  process  of  printing  itself. 
This  defect  can  be  remedied  by  the  expenditure  of  enough  time 
and  money  in  getting  more  samples,  having  them  graded  by  more 
judges,  reproducing  more  of  them  in  electrotypes,  and  having 
these  reproductions  graded  again  by  more  judges.  In  this  work 
I  am  now  engaged.  The  defect  is,  however,  of  little  consequence 
to  any  use  to  which  any  of  my  readers  is  likely  to  put  the  scale. 


5  ^ 


il 


>• 


|5   I  ^  I     ^  j-l  1 

fi!  ^T    Ic^* 


2   1^1 

a  |1| 


?« 


^^ 


■1^   I 


3  ^ 


1^ 


il  I 


1 1^ 


111 
^11 


1     4 


^j 


m  m 


(    ( 


NT* 


o 


J   - 


1 


CJ 


4 


H 


-i 


3 


-6 


r<^ 


M 

i  4 


1  ii 


4^ 


^ 


}■ 


=   It  ?w    - 

f   1  ^  t  u.    1 


I  ^■ 


^^    i' 


4Y  I 


1^1 


3  1 


o 


o 


The  Measurement  of  the  Quality  of  Handzvriting         ii 

For  the  variations  in  the  scale  are  trivial  compared  to  the  vari- 
ations in  individual  judgment.  I  have  measured  the  quality  of 
each  sample  in  the  scale  to  tenths  of  a  step,  subject  to  slight 
changes  had  more  judges  been  available,  and  apart  from  varia- 
tions in  the  printing.  For  example,  the  quality  of  sample  49 
in  the  scale  is  15.1,  not  exactly  15.0. 

Similar  figures  for  each  sample  in  the  scale  are  given  below. 
If  any  one  wishes  to  have  the  values  of  each  sample  as  precise 
as  possible  he  may  substitute  these  values.  In  scientific  studies 
of  handwriting  in  schools  this  should  be  done,  but  in  practical 
grading  by  teachers  the  5,  6,  7,  8,  etc.,  of  the  scale  may  be  kept 
without  the  decimal  alterations. 

What  changes  might  be  made  in  the  qualities,  if  the  consensus 
of  thousands  of  judges  were  to  replace  the  consensus  of  from 
twenty  to  seventy,  is  shown  in  the  figures  in  the  third  column, 
which  give  the  probable  average  divergences  of  the  former  con- 
sensus from  the  latter.  They  show  that  the  scale  is  not  nearly  so 
precise  as,  say,  a  25  cent  scale  for  weight.  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  superiority  of  the  scale  to  the  personal  opinion  of  any 
one  teacher  or  investigator  is  enormous.  The  latter  would  have  a 
probable  average  divergence  of  from  i.o  to  1.6  from  the  con- 
sensus of  a  thousand  competent  judges. 


Probable  average  divergence  of  the 
estimated  quality  from  an  estimate 
by   an   infinite   number    of  judges 

.14 
•43 

.19 
.18 

•  39 
•35 

.20 
.19 

.20 
.18 
.18 
.21 

•  19 
.20 
.20 
.20 


Table    I 

Pr 

im  le 

Quality 

32 
84 

16. 1 
16.2 

47 

15-0 

49 
89 

I5-I 
15-0 

90 

15 -I 

19 

14.0 

54 

14.0 

4 

12.9 

24 
26 

13. 1 
12.9 

55 

13-1 

30 

II. 9 

7 

12.0 

52 

12.0 

23 

II. 0 

12  Handwriting 

Probable    average    divergence    of    the 
estimated   quality    from   an   estimate 
by   an    infinite    number    of  judges 
Sample  Quality 

45  II. o  .19 

106  ii.o  .28 

17  10.2  .18 

21  9-1  -15 

28  8.9  .15 

31  8.9  .14 

48  8.0  .14 

14  8.1  .19 

126  7.0  .40 

The  reader,  in  examining  the  scale,  may  think  that  some  of  the 
samples  called  equal  are  really  unequal.  If  he  objects  to  vertical 
writing,  he  may,  for  instance,  think  that  sample  55  in  Scale  A  is 
at  least  one  step  worse  than  sample  24.  Such  criticisms 
of  the  scale  are,  however,  really  strong  arguments  in  its 
favor.  For  such  a  critic  is  surely  wrong.  That  he  denies  the 
correctness  of  the  average  opinion  of  forty  competent  judges 
means  simply  that  his  own  judgment  is  partial  or  crude,  and 
the  fact  that  each  individual's  judgments  of  handwriting  are 
thus  partial  and  crude  proves  that  he  needs  a  scale  representing 
the  general  judgment  of  competent  people  to  help  him  to  judge 
and  to  teach  him  to  eliminate  the  unfairness  in  his  own  future 
judgments.  If  no  one  felt  any  disagreement  with  this  scale,  it 
would  not  be  so  valuable  as  it  is  under  the  condition  that  many 
individuals  will  think  it  wrong.  For  those  who  are  unfair  to 
any  style  of  handwriting  or  w^ho  overemphasize  beauty  in  com- 
parison with  legibility,  or  evenness  in  comparison  with  "  char- 
acter," or  the  reverse,  can  be  proved  by  the  scale  to  be  unfair — 
that  is,  to  diverge  from  the  average  judgment  of  competent 
people  in  general.  If  they  are  intelligent,  they  can  learn  from 
the  scale  to  correct  their  bias. 

It  is  possible,  however,  that  some  critic  may  deny  the  value  of 
the  average  judgment  of  competent  people  in  general  and  declare 
that  though  that  judgment  pronounces  two  handwritings  equal 
in  merit,  he  knows  that  they  are  not  equal.  Now  conceivably  he 
might  be  right.  But  the  chances  are  enormously  against  his 
being  right,  and  science  naturally  cannot  count  his  assurance  as 
of  more  weight  than  that  of  any  other  judge  of  equal  competence. 


The  Measurement  of  the  Quality  of  Handzcritiug         13 

Some  more  sophisticated  critic  may  object,  not  that  he  knows 
that  this  scale  is  wrong  and  prefers  his  own  supposed  competence 
to  that  of  forty  of  his  peers,  but  that  no  one  can  know  whether 
this  or  any  such  scale  is  right.  For,  he  will  add,  any  such  scale 
is  subjective/  representing  only  what  certain  individuals  think 
about  the  merit  or  value  of  samples  of  handwriting.  In  this  there 
is  some  truth.  There  is  no  value  in  average  opinion  as  such. 
The  world  was  as  round,  when  the  most  competent  judges 
thought  it  flat,  as  it  is  today.  If  it  should  some  time  be  proved 
that  evenness  of  width  of  line  was  the  sole  criterion  of  real  merit 
in  handwriting,  the  scale  would  be  wrong.  But  in  the  case  of 
handwriting  the  only  available  criterion  of  real  "  merit "  or 
"  quality  "  or  "  goodness  ''  is  the  average  judgment  of  competent 
people.  A  hundred  years  from  now  merit  in  handwriting  may 
mean  something  different  from  what  it  now  means  and  a  new 
scale  may  be  required.  But  what  it  then  means  will  then  be 
determined  by  the  average  judgment  of  competent  men  and 
shown  in  a  scale  derived  just  as  this  one  has  been  derived.  \\'hat 
merit  does  noiv  mean  is  precisely  the  thing  measured  by  this 
scale.  Merit  in  handwriting  in  the  judgment  of  competent 
people  today  is  the  composite  of  qualities,  each  duly  weighted, 
wherein  the  samples  marked  12  are  as  much  better  than  the 
samples  marked  10  as  the  latter  are  than  those  marked  8,  etc. 
The  scale  measures  not  only  some  absolute  merit,  but  merit  as 
now  defined  in  the  average  judgment  of  forty  or  more  persons 
chosen  at  random  from  the  competent.  And  no  other  sort  of 
merit  is  so  well  fitted  to  be  the  basis  of  a  scale. 

A  far  more  sagacious  criticism  than  either  of  these  would  be 
that  a  scale  like  this  for  merit  in  general  is  less  useful  than  a 
scale  for  legibility  alone,  or  for  beauty  alone,  or  for  "character" 
alone,  or  for  ease  alone.  Of  course,  I  admit  that  such  specialized 
scales  are  highly  desirable,  and  I  hope  that  this  scale  for  general 

'  If  this  report  were  addressed  to  students  specially  interested  in  logic 
and  scientific  methods  applied  to  the  social  sciences,  it  would  be  worth 
while  to  show  here  that  the  objectivity  of  a  scale  for  length  as  compared 
with  the  Gubjectivity  of  a  scale  for  merit  of  handwritings,  or  moral  worth 
of  acts,  or  beauty  of  poems,  means  only  a  closer  likeness  amongst  men 
in  their  judgments,  not  a  radically  different  sort  of  judgment.  Being 
far,  far  more  alike  in  sense-organs  and  muscles  than  in  the  central  con- 
nections of  neurones,  we  agree  far  better  in  comparing  lines  and  weights 
than  in  comparing  handwritings  or  poems. 


14  Hand-writing 

merit  will  stimulate  others  to  the  labor  of  making  similar  scales 
for  legibility  alone,  beauty  alone,  and  so  on.  But  it  seems  sure 
that  the  scale  of  most  importance  and  usefulness  is  that  for  gen- 
eral merit.  General  merit  is  that  for  which  school  grades  are 
oftenest  given,  in  respect  to  which  school  systems  or  classes  are 
oftenest  compared,  and  with  which  other  features  of  a  pupil's 
achievements  are  oftenest  related.  Moreover,  only  after  a  scale 
for  general  merit  has  been  made  can  one  measure  the  extent  to 
which  legibility,  beauty,  etc.,  respectively  determine  general 
merit. 

So  much  for  criticism  of  the  general  method  of  constructing 
the  scale.     I  turn  now  to  possible  criticisms  of  the  scaling  itself. 

Some  one  may  ask  why  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  etc.,  are  used  as  the  values 
of  the  samples  of  Scale  A  instead  of  some  other  equal-step 
series  of  numbers  such  as  i,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  etc.,  or  65,  673^,  75, 
77y2,  80,  etc.  The  step  is  made  i  rather  than  2^  because  one 
cannot  judge  samples  precisely  enough  to  profit  by  more  than  18 
divisions  in  a  scale.  Hence  the  time  spent  in  deciding  whether 
to  call  a  sample  measured  by  the  scale  78  or  76  or  yy  and  in  later 
computing  with  the  large  numbers  would  be  largely  wasted.  The 
ratio  of  the  highest  to  the  lowest  children's  writing  in  the  scale  is 
made  17  to  5  (or  roughly  3^^  to  i),  instead  of  6  to  i  or  13  to  9 
(973/2  to  6yy2)  because,  from  the  average  opinion  of  competent 
judges  and  the  facts  of  individual  differences  in  motor  ability, 
zeal  for  handwriting,  and  other  factors  determining  the  quality 
of  a  pupil's  writing,  the  best  writing  from  children  in  these 
grades  seems  likely  to  possess  less  than  six  times  as  much  merit 
as  the  worst,  but  more  than  one  and  a  third  times  as  much — in 
other  words,  to  be  less  than  six  times  as  far,  but  more  than  twice 
as  far,  beyond  zero  merit. 

That  is,  the  scale  was  arranged  so  that  the  numbers  represent- 
ing the  distances  beyond  zero  of  the  best  and  worst  samples  of 
children's  writing  in  our  scale  should  stand  in  the  ratio  of  ap- 
proxi:nately  3]/  to  i,  and  also  so  that  the  numbers  on  the 
scale  should  be  the  smallest  compatible  with  as  accurate  measure- 
ment of  handwritings  as  educational  theory  and  practice  need.   If 

any  one  prefers  as  a  scaling  15,  17,  19,  21 43,  or  3,  4,  5,  6 

...  .17,  or  7,  8,  9,  10.  . .  .21,  it  would  be  hard  to  prove  to  him 
that  his  choice  was  inferior  to  the  4,  5,  6,  7,  8.  ...  18  used.    The 


The  Measurement  of  the  Quality  of  Handivriting         15 

essential  thing  is  that  the  steps  be  equal,  and  that  the  ratio  which 
the  amount  attached  to  the  best  children's  writing  bears  to  the 
amount  attached  to  the  worst  be  a  reasonable  one. 

Having  defined  what  was  meant  by  o  merit  (see  sample  140  on 
page  16,  I  judged  as  best  I  could  the  distance  of  sample  141^ 
therefrom  in  terms  of  the  distance  of  sample  2-  therefrom.  The 
judgment  of  3  2/5  times  is  by  no  means  final.  Indeed  I  am  now^ 
engaged  in  an  investigation  aiming  to  revise  it.  I  could  argue 
plausibly  for  a  ratio  as  low  as  2^  to  i  or  for  one  as  high  as  5 
to  I.  But  a  ratio  somewhere  between  3  to  i  and  3^  to  i 
seems  the  most  reasonable. 

The  whole  matter  of  the  choice  of  an  absolute  o  for  merit  in 
handwriting,  and  of  the  consequent  absolute  values  of  the  points 
on  the  scale,  is  one  involving  many  intricate  considerations  out  of 
place  in  this  discussion.  I  fear  that  in  touching  upon  it  at  all  I 
may  have  perplexed  some  readers.  Such  may  rest  confident  that 
in  using  the  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  9,  10,  11,  12,  etc.,  of  the  scale  in  measur- 
ing a  sample  of  handwriting  as  they  would  use  4.  5,  6,  7,  8,  9, 
ID,  II,  12,  etc.,  dollars  in  measuring  the  value  of  a  book  or  a 
jew^el  or  a  trunk,  they  will  commit  no  error  of  much  consequence 
or,  at  least,  no  error  so  great  as  they  would  be  likely  to  commit 
by  measuring  it  in  any  other  one  way. 

Another  criticism  may  be  that  the  scale  does  not  guarantee 
agreement  among  the  observers  using  it  to  measure  a  sample  of 
handwriting.  The  same  sample  may,  it  will  be  said,  be  measured 
by  one  person  as  equal  in  merit  to  8,  by  another  as  equal  to  10, 
and  by  still  another  as  equal  to  9.  This  is  true,  but  it  is  not  the 
fault  of  the  scale.  Observers  will  disagree  in  their  measure- 
ments made  with  the  scale,  but  not  nearly  so  much  as  in  meas- 
urements made  zvithont  it.  No  scale  guarantees  absolute  agree- 
ment.    Observers  measuring  the  length  of  this  line  to 

tenths  of  a  millimeter  will  not  agree.  But  they  will  agree  better 
than  they  would  if  they  had  no  scale  and  judged  its  length  as  a 
savage  might. 


'  Nearly  the  best  sanjple  from  children  in  grades  7  and  8. 
'  Nearly  the  worst  sample  from  children  in  grades  4  and  5. 


i6 


Handwriting 


II 


eg 

"5  « 
E  ^ 


The  Measurement  of  the  Quality  of  Handwriting         17 

Section  5.      The  Uses  of  the  Scale 

The  topic  of  this  section  is  fitly  treated  in  the  one  statement : 
Any  measurement  of  the  quahty  of  handwriting  may  be  made 
more  accurately  and  conveniently  with  the  scale,  cither  actually 
present  or  held  in  memory,  than  without  it.  The  reader  may 
apply  this  statement  to  whatever  cases  his  interests  suggest.  I 
shall  mention  a  few  of  the  commoner  uses  and  explain  the  func- 
tion of  the  scale  as  a  standard  held  in  memory. 

The  class-room  teacher  has  to  measure  the  quality  of  a  single 
pupil's  handwriting  in  order  to  assign  him  a  rating  in  comparison 
with  his  fellows  and,  better  still,  in  comparison  with  his  own  past 
performances.  If  she  uses  the  scale  either  by  giving  its  numeri- 
cal measures  outright  or  by  letting  her  A,  B,  C's,  or  75,  80,  82, 
etc.,  per  cents,  or  excellents,  goods,  fairs,  etc.,  mean  certain 
points  on  the  scale,  her  ratings  will  have  a  definite  meaning  to 
the  pupil,  can  have  the  same  meanings  that  similar  ratings  by 
other  teachers  in  the  school  have,  and  may  be  used  to  measure 
the  actual  improvement  of  the  pupil  month  by  month  and  year 
by  year.  She  can  more  easily  and  more  accurately  measure  the 
relative  values  of  the  different  methods  of  teaching  which  she 
may  from  time  to  time  employ,  of  different  lengths  of  periods 
for  drill,  and  the  like. 

A  principal  or  supervisor  or  superintendent  of  schools  needs 
to  measure  the  quality  of  the  handwriting  of  individuals,  of 
classes,  and  of  all  classes  of  the  same  grade,  in  a  school  or 
system.  If  he  has  such  measures  honestly  made  by  the  scale,  he 
can  compare  the  work  of  one  teacher  with  that  of  another,  the 
work  within  his  own  school  or  city  with  that  of  other  schools  or 
cities  and  with  that  of  his  own  city  five  years  later,  the  work  of 
schools  using  one  system  of  writing  with  that  of  schools  using 
other  systems,  and  the  like.  If  he  tried  without  the  scale  to  esti- 
mate the  superiority  or  inferiority  in  handwriting  of  twelve-year- 
olds  in  city  A  to  twelve-year-olds  in  city  B,  he  would  have  to 
collect  many  samples  in  both  cities  and  have  them  graded  alike. 
He  could  define  the  amount  of  difference  found  only  by  actually 
exhibiting  it  in  samples  or  by  making  oiit  a  scale  like  ours,  defin- 
ing it  as  I  have  done,  and  expressing  the  difference  as  such  a 
distance  on  the  scale.    With  the  scale  in  use  in  both  cities,  on  the 


i8  Handivriting 

contrary,  if  marks  are  honestly  given  by  the  teachers,  the 
superiority  or  inferiority  of  any  group  will  be  measured  by  the 
difference  in  the  scale-values  of  the  marks  themselves. 

The  scientific  student  of  education  will  use  the  scale  to  mea- 
sure the  quality  of  samples  of  handwriting  from  individuals, 
classes,  cities,  groups  chosen  for  grade,  age,  sex,  method  of 
teaching,  or  length  of  time  devoted  to  writing,  and  from  any 
other  sources.  He  will  also  be  able  to  use  any  marks  or  ratings 
honestly  given  by  teachers  or  others. 

Whoever  has  any  occasion  to  define  a  standard  of  quality  in 
handwriting  can  define  it  unmistakably  and  conveniently  by  the 
scale.  Business  men  can  decide  what  quality  they  wish  the 
schools  to  secure  in  the  boy  fourteen  years  old  who  is  to  apply 
for  clerical  positions.  A  supervisor  can  inform  all  the  teachers 
of,  say,  grade  7  that  the  minimum  requirement  is,  say,  quality 
II,  at  a  rate  of  50  letters  per  minute,  that  the  average  pupil 
must  be  made  to  write  at  quality  13  at  a  rate  of  60  letters  per 
minute,  and  so  on.  Whatever  standard  is  set  will  be  absolutely 
defined  by  those  who  set  it  and  will  be  clear  to  all  those  who  are 
to  follow  it. 

The  pupil  himself  may  profitably  know  and  use  the  scale.  He 
may  see  by  it  what  is  expected  of  him  and  may  tell  how  nearly 
he  reaches  the  standard  and  how  much  he  has  gained. 

Even  if  precision  is  not  desired  in  the  estimate  of  the  quality 
of  handwriting, — even  if  good  and  bad  or  satisfactory  and  un- 
satisfactory are  the  only  ratings  to  be  given, — the  scale  is  none 
the  less  useful.  For  if  good  and  bad,  or  satisfactory  and  unsatis- 
factory are  to  mean  anything,  they  must  mean  handwritings 
above  and  below  some  point  on  some  scale  of  merit.  They  can 
be  properly  defined  only  by  locating  that  point.  And  until  some 
better  scale  is  available  that  point  can  be  located  only  by  ex- 
hibiting samples  or  by  stating  the  numerical  value  these  samples 
would  have  on  our  scale. 

To  put  the  whole  matter  in  a  word,  anv  measurement  of  the 
quality  of  iiandwriting  should  be  made  by  the  scale  and  reported 
in  terms  of  the  scale,  for  substantially  the  same  reasons  that  any 
measurement  of  the  length  of  an  object  should  be  made  with  a 
linear  scale  and  rc])orted  in  meters  or  feet. 


The  Measurement  of  the  Oiiality  of  Haiuhvriting         19 

Measurements  may  be  made  by  the  scale  without  the  com- 
parison of  the  sample  with  the  actual  scale  itself.  Just  as  one 
uses  his  experience  of  feet  and  inches  as  a  mental  standard 
whereby  he  estimates  more  or  less  accurately  the  length  of 
pencils,  tables,  windows,  and  the  like,  without  an  actual  ruler  or 
tape,  so  one  may  come  to  estimate  that  this  sample  of  writing  is 
about  quality  16,  that  one  about  quality  9,  and  the  like,  from  the 
mental  standard  left  from  examination  and  use  of  the  actual 
scale.  The  scale  should  always  be  present  for  reference  in  any 
measurement  which  requires  exactitude,  but  it  will  do  its  greatest 
amount  of  service,  not  by  actually  serving  as  a  foot-rule  for 
quality  in  handwriting,  but  by  creating  in  the  minds  of  teach- 
ers mental  standards  to  be  used  in  even  the  most  casual  ratings 
of  everyday  school-room  life.  To  one  who  uses  the  scale  quality 
18  or  quality  15  or  quality  7  comes  to  be  a  definite  agent  in  de- 
termining all  judgments,  just  as  18  inches  or  15  pounds  or  7 
dollars  is.  Just  as  a  child  learns  to  think  about  length  correctly 
and  with  fair  precision  without  a  ruler  in  his  hand,  by  having 
measured  off  lengths  with  it,  so  teachers  may  come  to  think  about 
handwriting  correctly  and  with  fair  precision  without  the  scale 
before  their  eyes  by  having  measured  handwritings  with  it.  Just 
as  the  thermometer  teaches  us  to  supplant  the  vague  "  very 
cold,"  "  cold,"  "  moderate,"  "  warm,"  "  hot,"  and  "  very  hot  " 
by  "  about  o,"  "  about  freezing,"  "  about  60  degrees,"  "  about  70 
degrees,"  "  about  80  degrees,"  "  nearly  100,"  and  the  like,  so  the 
graphometer  can  teach  us  to  supplant  the  vague  "  illegible," 
"  very  hard  to  read."  "  a  good  plain  hand,"  and  the  like,  by  judg- 
ments which  mean  something  definite  and  constant  to  those  who 
make  and  those  who  hear  them. 

Section  6.  A  Scale  for  Quality  in  Adult  IVomen's  Hand- 
zvriting 

The  scale  for  adult  women's  handwriting  consists  of  only  six 
points,  each  represented  by  only  one  sam])le.  Let  us  call  these 
samples  a,  b,  c,  d,  c,  and  f.  They  represent  the  best  selection 
that  I  could  make  of  writings  ranging  from  nearly  the  best  to 
nearly  the  worst  of  the  ordinary  writings  of  some  five  hundred 
women    teachers    and    students    and    differing   progressively    by 


20  Handwriting 

equal  degrees  of    merit.     The  derivation  of    the  scale   was   as 
follows : 

Thirty  judges  rated  samples  a,  b,  c,  d,  c,  and  /,  together  with 
from  37  to  456  other  samples.  The  ratings  given  were  from 
I  (the  lowest  grade)  to  11  (the  highest),  grades  i  to  11  being 
roughly  shown  by  samples  and  the  requirements  being  made  that 
the  grades  2,  3,  4,  5,  etc.,  should  represent  grades  of  merit  dif- 
fering by  equal  steps.  The  number  of  the  samples  was  reduced 
from  456  to  37  by  gradually  dropping  samples  which  seemed 
unlikely  to  be  near  the  points  i  to  11.  The  result  of  the  thirty 
ratings  is  shown  in  Table  II. 

Table    II 

The  Quality  of  Samples  a,  b,  c,  etc.,  as  Measured  by  30  Judges 
FROM  THE  Original  Writings 

Quality  Frequencies  of  Each  Quality  for  Each  Sample 


a 

b 

c 

d 

e 

f 

I 

20 

I 

I 

2 

7 

12 

3 

I 

6 

2 

I 

4 

2 

6 

7 

I 

5 

2 

10 

6 

I 

6 

I 

5 

3 

2 

7 

3 

8 

6 

2 

8 

I 

I 

3 

4 

9 

I 

5 

6 

3 

10 

I 

6 

6 

II 

3 

5 

19 

Bearing  in  mind  that  a  rating  of  quality  i  means  i  or  ivorse 
than  I  and  that  a  rating  of  quality  11  means  11  or  better  than 
II,  it  is  clear  that  in  the  com.bined  judgment  of  all  30  judges 
a,  b,  c,  d,  e,  and  /  represent  qualities  progressing  by  approxi- 
mately equal  steps.  Thus  10  of  the  judges  ranked  a  as  better 
than  I,  10  ranked  b  as  better  than  3,  and  10  ranked  c  as  better 
than  5,  12  ranked  d  as  better  than  7,  and  ii  ranked  e  as  better 
than  9.  Of  the  20  judgments  of  a  as  i,  it  is  probable  that  about 
10  would  have  been  "  worse  than  i  "  had  the  series  included  a 
lower  range.  Of  the  18  judgments  of  /  as  11,  it  is  probable  that 
about  10  would  have  been  "better  than  11  "  had  the  series  in- 
cluded a  higher  range.  The  median  values  of  a,  b,  c,  etc.,  with 
this  interpretation  of  the  grades  i   and  11,  are:    i.o,  2.833,  5 A 


The  Measurement  of  the  Quality  of  Handwriting         21 

7.125,  8.833  ^"<i  10.94,  the  differences  in  quality  being  respec- 
tively 1.833,  2.167,  2.125,  1.708,  and  2.107. 

These  six  samples  were  then  printed  and  were  graded  in  their 
printed  form,  together  with  seven  other  samples  of  approxi- 
mately the  qualities  i,  3,  5,  5,  7,  9  and  11,  by  thirty-eight  judges. 
The  ratings  in  this  case  were  in  6  grades,  to  progress  by  equal 
steps.  These  were  called  by  the  judges  i,  2,  3,  4,  5  and  6,  but 
represent  respectively  i,  3,  5,  7,  9  and  11  of  the  gradings  just 
presented  in  Table  II.  Hence  in  Table  III,  which  gives  the  re- 
sults of  the  gradings  by  these  thirty-eight  judges,  I  shall  use  i,  3, 
5,  etc.,  for  I,  2,  3,  etc. 

Table    III 

The  Qualities  of  Samples  a,  b,  c,  etc.,  as  Measured  by  38  Judges 
FROM  THE  Printed  Reproductions 

Quality  Frequencies  of  Each  Quality  for  Each  Sample 


a 

b* 

c 

d 

e 

f 

I 

32 

7 

3 

5 

21 

8 

3 

5 

I 

9 

19 

12 

I 

7 

9 

19 

6 

3 

9 

2 

3 

22 

13 

II 

I 

9 

22 

Only 

27  J 

udges 

rate 

:d  this 

sample. 

The  median  ratings  for  a,  b,  c,  etc.,  are  .8,  3.1,  5.1,  6.4,  9.1, 
10.7. 

These  thirteen  printed  samples  were  then  rated  together  with 
from  58  to  104  samples  of  children's  handwriting,  including 
samples  much  better  than  the  best  of  the  adults',  by  26  judges. 
The  ratings  were  from  i  to  11,  but  the  meanings  of  these  num- 
bers were  unlike  those  attached  to  them  in  Tables  II  and  III, 
except  in  the  case  of  the  i.  The  3,  5,  7,  9,  and  11  of  Tables 
II  and  III  have  approximately  the  values  2.4,  3.8,  5.2,  6.6,  and  8. 
Finally,  the  thirteen  samples  were  rated,  together  with  120  sam- 
ples of  children's  writings,  including  some  still  better  and  some 
still  worse,  by  9  judges.  The  ratings  were  o  to  12  but  the 
values  of  the  i,  3,  5,  7,  9,  and  11  of  Tables  II  and  III  were,  as 
before,  approximately  i,  2.4,  3.8,  5.2,  6.6  and  8.  The  median 
values  attached  by  the  35  judges  were,  for  a,  b,  c,  d,  e,  and  /, 
in  order,  i,  2.4,  3.83,  5.3,  6.5,  and  7.9. 

We  have  then  as  a  result  of  the  three  series  of  judgments, 
numbering  103  in  all,  the  following: 


22  Handzvriting 

Differences  between  a  and  b,  b  and  c,  c  and  d,  etc. : 

I.  Using  the  median  ratings  of  30  judges  (ink  samples)  :  1.83, 
2.17,  2.13,  1.71,  2.11. 

II.  Using  the  median  ratings  of  38  judges  (print)  :  2.3,  2.0, 
'1.3,  2.7,  1.6. 

III.  Using  the  median  ratings  of  35  judges  (print,  long 
series)  reduced  to  equivalences  with  (I)  and  (II)  :  2.0,  2.04, 
2.1,  1.7,  2.0. 

Average  differences:  a-b,  2.04;  b-c,  2.07;  c-d,  1.84;  d-e,  2.04; 
e-f,  1. 91. 

The  approximate  equality  of  the  steps  may  be  verified  by  as- 
certaining how  often  b  is  rated  higher  than  a,  how  often  c  is 
rated  higher  than  b,  etc.,  that  is,  by  an  adaptation  of  the  so-called 
method  of  right  and  wrong  cases.    The  facts  are  as  follows : 


Table  IV 

Comparisons  of  a, 

b.   C,   d,   e,   AND   f   BY 

102  Judges 

Long  series, 

written 
samples 

Series  of  i 
printed 
samples 

13 

Series  of  71 

to  133  printed 

samples 

All 

series 
together 

No.  of  comparisons 

30 

37 

35 

102 

b  rated  as  better  than  a 
c  rated  as  better  than  b 
d  rated  as  better  than  c 
e  rated  as  better  than  d 
f  rated  as  better  than  e 

25* 

26* 

22, 

23 

23* 

26 

25* 
25* 
29 

24 

23 

27* 

25* 

19 

26 

74 
78 
73 
71 
73 

In  the  starred  cases  the  obtained  figure  was  i  less  than  that 
printed,  but  the  number  of  comparisons  it  was  from  was  also  i 
less  than  that  printed  at  the  top  of  the  column. 

Samples  a,  b.  c,  d,  c,  and  /  thus  represent  points  on  a  scale 
of  quality  differing  each  from  the  next  by  approximately  equal 
steps.  We  can  properly  call  their  values  in  order  x,  x  +  2,  x  +  4, 
X -{- 6,  ,r -f  8,  and  x+  10  where  i.o  equals  a  difference  roughly 
equal  to  one-tenth  of  the  difference  between  the  best  ten  and  the 
worst  ten  of  a  thousand  samples  each  from  an  adult  woman 
student  and  .r  equals  the  average  quality  of  the  worst  ten  of  the 
thousand.  To  be  more  precise  we  should  call  them,  in  order,  x, 
X  +  2.0,  X  +  4.1,  X  +  6.0,  X  +  8.0,  and  x  -j-  9.9. 


The  Measurement  of  the  Quality  of  Haiidzvriting         23 

To  turn  these  values  into  numbers  referring  to  zero  merit  as  a 
starting  point  we  must  define  zero  merit  for  adult  handwriting 
and  measure  the  distance  of  .r  from  it. 

This  I  have  not  attempted  to  do  at  all  adequately  since  the 
need  of  an  elaborate  scale  is  not  nearly  so  great  in  the  case  of 
adult  handwriting  as  in  the  case  of  children's  writing.  Quality 
X  of  the  adult  scale  is  judged  by  the  average  of  some  forty  indi- 
viduals to  be  approximately  equal  to  quality  8  of  the  children's 
scale.  A  difference  of  i.o  along  the  adult  scale  is  judged  to  be 
approximately  equal  to  a  dift'erence  of  .7  along  the  children's 
scale.  If  we  take  the  zero  point  for  adults  as  approximately  the 
same  as  for  children  of  grades  5,  6,  7,  and  8,  the  qualities  of 
a,  b,  c,  etc.,  may  be  taken  as  approximately  equal,  in  order,  to 
8,  9.4,  10.8.  12.3,  13.6,  and  14.9  or  15  on  an  absolute  scale  whose 
zero  is  a  writing  recognizable  as  an  attempt  to  write,  but  of  zero 
merit.     Such  a  numbering  would  not  be  far  wrong. 

This  adult  scale  very  much  needs  samples  of  other  styles  at 
each  point.  Perhaps  I  should  have  delayed  printing  it  until  such 
had  been  obtained,  but  the  labor  and  expense  of  collecting  and 
selecting,  by  grading  and  gradual  elimination,  samples  to  fit  ex- 
actly certain  places  on  the  scale  is  very  great.  The  present  scale 
has  required  thousands  of  gradings.  It  will  be  of  great  value  in 
economizing  the  time  and  money  of  any  one  who  wishes  to  make 
a  better  scale,  if  in  no  other  way. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  in  spite  of  its  lack  of  samples  of  all 
styles  at  each  point,  it  will  also  be  of  service  in  every  case  where 
the  quality  of  a  woman's  handwriting  is  to  be  definitely  known. 

For  example,  ( i )  the  authorities  of  a  college  or  a  normal 
school  wish  to  set  a  clear  standard  as  to  how  good  handwriting 
must  1)6  in  order  to  make  an  examination  paper,  or  a  composi- 
tion, or  other  written  work,  acceptable.  If  they  set  this  standard 
as  "  at  least  as  good  as  quality  c  of  the  Thorndike  scale  "  every 
student,  every  member  of  the  teaching  staff,  the  faculties  of  other 
colleges,  and  the  public  can  tell  just  what  the  standard  is.  There 
can  be  real  as  well  as  "  paper  "  uniformity  in  the  standard. 

(2)  In  civil  service  examinations,  examinations  for  teacher's 
licenses  and  the  like,  the  standard  of  a  certain  (juality  by  the 
scale  at  a  certain  minimum  speed  can  be  set  and  the  candidates 


24  Handwriting 

can  be  exactly,  impartially,  and  uniformly  (all  over  ihe  country, 
if  desired)  rated. 

(3)  The  relation  between  (a)  ability  in  handwriting  under  the 
pressure  of  school  drill  to  (b)  ability  in  handwriting  in  later  life 
requires  for  study  some  adult  scale.  So  also  with  any  other 
relation  of  the  quality  of  adult  handwriting  to  anything. 

I  shall  be  indebted  to  any  one  who  will  send  me  samples  of 
adult  women's  handwriting,  especially  of  vertical  writing  of 
qualities  d,  c,  b,  a,  and  worse,  of  pronounced  slant  writing  of 
qualities  d,  c,  j,  and  better,  and  of  pronounced  backhand  writing 
of  all  qualities.  Each  such  sample  should  be  accompanied  by  a 
statements  of  all  the  grades  assigned  to  it  on  our  scale  by  ten  or 
twelve  competent  observers,  each  of  whom  judges  in  entire 
ignorance  of  the  judgments  made  by  all  the  others.  It  is  de- 
sirable, though  not  necessary,  that  the  writings  be  on  unruled 
paper. 

Section  7.     The  Derivation  of  the  Scales^ 

Certain  partial  descriptions  of  the  means  and  methods  by 
which  the  children's  scale  and  adult  women's  scale  were  derived 
have  been  given  in  sections  2  and  6.  A  full  account  of  the  deri- 
vation of  either  is  inadvisable  both  because  it  would  necessarily 
be  extremely  long  and  because  much  of  the  work  done  was  such 
as  I  now  know,  from  the  very  experience  of  doing  it  and  seeing 
its  results,  to  have  been  unnecessary. 

I  shall  therefore  give  only  such  notes  as  are  likely  to  be  helpful 
to  any  one  who  is  stimulated  by  this  scale  to  construct  similar 
scales  for  other  educational  products. 

To  construct  a  scale  by  which  to  measure  various  qualities 
(that  is,  amounts  of  merit)  in  handwriting  ranging  from,  say,  x 
to  X  +  y,  it  is  desirable  to  have  samples  of  qualities,  not  only  of 
every  degree  from  x  to  x  +  3;,  but  also  of  qualities  worse  than  x 
and  of  qualities  better  than  x  -f-  3'.  The  reason  is  that  otherwise 
the  exact  values  of  samples  at  x  or  x  plus  a  slight  amount  and  of 
samples  at  x  -\-  y  or  x  -\-  y  minus  a  slight  amount  cannot  be  di- 
rectly measured,  but  only  inferred. 


^  The  reader  uninterested  in  educational  measurements  is  advised 
to  skip  this  section,  and  to  turn  at  once  to  the  more  immediately 
practical  discussion  of  differences  amongst  school  systems  with  respect 
to   speed   and   quality  of  handwriting. 


^i       4  i  '4  ■ 

■" ;        s  S  3  9 

II  >^  ^i 

J  S  s     J    «  §  I   J  =3 

III  ^>  iq 


<n 


iM 


"^1 


J3J 


?i  ..>^ 


J    1.1 


-^si 


ft   ^1l 


^f! 


01 

If 


—  ■( 


The  Measurement  of  the  Quality  of  Handwriting         25 

For  example,  call  x  i  and  y  10.  A^  +  y  then  being  11,  x  or  i  is 
nearly  the  worst  and  .r  +  3'  or  11  is  nearly  the  best  of  a  series  of 
samples,  ranging  continuously  from  x  to  x  +  y. 

If  now  any  one  is  required  to  fix  in  mind  11  points  including 
X   (or  i)   and  x  +  y   (or   11)   differing  each  from  the  next  by 

equal  amounts,  and  to  rate  each  of  the  samples  as  1,2,  3, 9, 

10,  or  II,  according  to  which  of  these  mentally  fixed  points  it 
seems  most  like,  he  can  err  by  rating  a  sample  as  2  or  3  when 
it  is  really  i,  but  cannot  err  by  rating  it  o  or  minus  i  when  it  is 
really  i.  Similarly  he  can  err  by  rating  it  9  or  10  when  it  is 
really  11,  but  cannot  err  by  rating  it  12  or  13.  For  a  sample 
really  close  to  point  11,  rated  in  the  way  just  described  by  33 
judges,  the  results  were : 

Rated  as  11  by  21  judges 

Rated  as  12  by  7  judges 

Rated  as  9  by  3  judges 

Rated  as  8  by  i  judge 

Rated  as  7  by  i  judge 

The  apparent  average  rating  would  then  be  10.4  and  the  apparent 
median  rating  10.7.  When,  however,  the  samples  are  increased 
by  some  of  the  real  quality  x -\- y -{-  i  (or  12)  and  the  ratings 
are  to  be  made  at  twelve  points  including  x -\- y -\-  i  (or  12),  a 
certain  proportion  of  the  judges  rank  the  sample  in  question  12 
and  the  average  and  median  are  raised  to  nearly  11. 

Unless  the  set  of  samples  to  be  rated  includes  some  samples 
one,  two,  three,  and  even  four  grades  better  than  the  best  quality 
{x -\- y)  to  be  represented  in  the  final  scale  and  also  some  sam- 
ples one,  two,  and  three  grades  w-orse  than  the  worst  quality  (.r) 
to  be  represented  in  the  final  scale,  one  cannot  get  the  values  of 
X  -\-  y  and  x  themselves  save  by  inference. 

Hence,  to  make  a  scale  for  the  handwritings  of,  say,  lo-year- 
old  school  children  conveniently,  it  is  necessary  to  have  a  collec- 
tion of  samples  varying  in  quality  from  much  below  the  worst  to 
much  above  the  best  of  their  writings.  This  involves  the  use  of 
"  unnatural  "  samples,  which  may  seem  very  objectionable,  but 
which  as  a  matter  of  fact  does  little  or  no  harm. 

In  the  case  of  a  scale  for  the  merit  of  English  compositions 
by  high-school  pupils  one  should  start  from  a  collection  of  com- 


26  Handwriting 

positions  ranging  by  small  gradations  from  compositions  much 
worse  than  the  worse  point  on  the  final  scale  is  to  be,  to  composi- 
tions much  better  than  the  best  point  on  the  final  scale  is  to  be. 
Here  the  extremely  bad  ones  may  be  obtained  by  artificial  con- 
struction, from  the  feeble-minded,  or  from  very  old  and  stupid 
grammar-school  children.  The  extremely  good  ones  may  be 
obtained  from  the  printed  or  manuscript  compositions  in  youth 
by  gifted  authors. 

To  get  samples  exactly  situated  at  points  differing  progres- 
sively by  equal  steps  requires  that  the  original  set  range  from 
one  extreme  to  the  other  by  very  slight  gradations.  This  means 
for  practical  purposes  that  one  must  have  at  the  start  a  very 
large  number  of  samples.  After  these  have  been  graded  by 
enough  judges  to  rate  each  roughly,  only  those  which  are  near 
the  points  to  be  represented  by  the  scale  need  be  graded  further. 
As  the  value  of  each  sample  of  this  narrower  selection  is  deter- 
mined more  exactly  by  further  judgments,  only  those  very  near 
the  points  to  be  represented  on  the  final  scale  need  be  preserved 
for  still  further  judgments;  and  so  on  till  the  values  of  enough 
samples  are  determined  to  the  degree  of  precision  required  for 
the  scale  itself. 

Points  on  the  scale  exactly  determined,  but  not  at  progres- 
sively equal  steps,  can  be  got  with  far  less  labor.  If,  for  example, 
after  a  single  rating  I  had  picked  samples  at  intervals  from  the 
best  to  the  worst  and  then  had  only  these  few  samples  rated  by 
the  twenty  to  seventy  judges,  the  value  of  each  could  have  been 
stated  nearly  as  exactly  as  is  the  case  in  the  samples  of  the  scale. 
But  they  would  form  a  series  like  17.33,  16.65,  16.28,  15.82,  15.40, 
15.47,  15.23,  14.95,  i4-7»  etc.,  instead  of  the  approximate  17,  16, 
15.  15.  15,  15,  15,  14.  13.  13.  13-  etc.,  of  the  scale.  They  would 
have  served  the  purpose  of  a  scale  as  well  so  far  as  aiding  an 
observer  to  make  exact  measurements  which  any  other  observer 
could  verify,  and  to  report  them  unambiguously,  but  the  labor  of 
allowing  for  the  decimal  values  or  of  computing  measures  ex- 
pressed in  awkwardly  long  numbers  would  burden  each  person 
using  the  scale.  If  the  scale  were  designed  for  use  only  by  scien- 
tific investigators  of  education,  I  should  have  economized  in  re- 
spect to  the  number  of  samples  rated,  had  far  more  ratings  of 
each  sample,  and  presented  a  scale  of  very  exactly  determined 


Thi  Measurement  of  the  Quality  of  Handwriting         27 

qualities  but  at  irregular  intervals.  For  the  common  use  of 
pupils,  teachers,  and  supervisory  officers  a  less  precise  scale  by 
approximately  equal  steps  seemed  far  more  valuable.  Also  the 
precise  evaluation  of  each  sample  can  be  determined  by  many 
students  each  spending  independently  a  little  effort  in  getting 
the  samples  which  I  print  rated ;  whereas  the  selection  of  samples 
varying  by  equal  steps  can  be  managed  best  under  one  indi- 
vidual's supervision. 

It  is  possible  that  the  determination  of  the  amount  of  dif- 
ference between  two  samples  by  the  percentage  of  judges  notic- 
ing the  dift'erence  is  preferable  to  the  determination  by  the 
amount  of  dift'erence  between  their  median  values  as  given  by 
judges  attempting  to  apply  to  each  a  scale  of  mentally  equal  dif- 
ferences. I  used  both  methods.  Experience  of  their  use  provides 
many  facts  of  importance  to  methods  of  quantitative  work  in 
both  psychology  and  education,  but  the  facts  would  be  of  interest 
to  only  the  small  proportion  of  readers  to  whom  surfaces  of  fre- 
quency of  errors  in  judgment  are  familiar  and  esteemed  friends. 
In  general,  the  experience  in  constructing  this  scale  gives  great 
encouragement  to  the  hope  that  for  many  educational  facts,  units 
and  scales  may  be  invented  that  shall  enable  us  to  think  quanti- 
tatively in  somewhat  the  same  way  that  we  can  about  facts  of 
physics,  chemistry,  or  economics.  It  has  been  commonly  sup- 
posed that  the  great  complexity  of  such  facts  as  examination 
papers  in  spelling,  manifestations  of  interest  in  history,  acts  of 
moral  significance,  habits  of  industry,  essays,  poems,  inventions, 
replies  to  questions  demanding  logical  inferences,  and  other  like 
results  of  education,  prevents  the  samples  composing  any  one 
such  group  from  being  measured  by  any  one  linear  scale  at  all 
comparable  to  a  foot  rule  or  thermometer  or  galvanometer. 

It  is  true  that  some  judges  find  it  hard  to  judge  handwriting 
for  the  complex  of  legibility,  beauty,  ease,  "  character,"  etc.,  into 
which  "  quality  "  or  "  goodness  "  or  "  merit  "  resolves  itself.  But 
none  of  them  found  it  impossible  to  do  so,  and  most  of  them 
rated  the  writing  for  the  complex, —  "  merit  or  goodness  in  your 
opinion," — as  readily  as  an  appraiser  would  rank  articles  of  sale 
by  money  price,  or  as  a  little  child  would  arrange  pieces  of  paper 
in  the  order  of  their  size  regardless  of  the  fact  that  some  were 
squares,  some  circles  and  some  triangles. 


28  Handwriting 

The  entire  history  of  the  judgments  of  the  merit  of  handwrit- 
ings supports  the  claim  that  if  a  number  of  facts  are  known  to 
vary  in  the  amount  of  any  thing  which  can  be  thought  of,  they 
can  be  measured  in  respect  to  it.  Otherwise.  I  may  add,  we 
would  not  know  that  they  varied  in  it.  Wherever  we  now 
properly  use  any  comparative,  we  can  by  ingenuity  learn  to  use 
defined  points  on  a  scale. 


PART    11 

The  Speed  and  Quality  of  Handwriting  in  Seven 
School    Systems 

The  conclusions  to  be  reported  in  sections  8  to  13  are  based 
upon  about  3000  samples  of  handwriting  made  in  a  formal  test 
conducted  by  Dr.  C.  W.  Stone^  in  seven  school  systems,  five 
public  and  two  private.  These  samples  were  scored  in  about  700 
cases  by  six  judges  using  no  scale,  and  in  the  remaining  cases 
by  two  judges  using  an  early  form  of  the  scale.  The  two  judges 
differed  by  more  than  one  step  of  the  scale  in  only  three  samples 
out  of  ten.  Thus  the  combined  opinion  of  the  two  judges, 
though  giving  only  a  rough  estimate  for  any  single  sample,  is 
sufficiently  precise  for  estimating  the  average  quality  of  the  writ- 
ing of  a  group  of  thirty  or  more  pupils,  such  as  a  school  class. 

Section  8.     Differences  between  Systems 

It  is  known  that  school  systems  differ  greatly  one  from  another 
in  arithmetic  (Stone,  '07)  and  much  less  in  spelling  (Rice,  '97, 
Cornman,  '02).  They  differ  markedly  in  handwriting  if  we 
compare  them  for  its  quality,  but  six  of  the  seven  differ  hardly 
any  when  they  are  compared  for  quality  of  writing  done  at  the 
same  speed. 

Thus  in  the  case  of  the  eighth  grade  the  median  quality  (for 
the  whole  grade)  of  writing  done  "  as  well  as  you  can  "  varies 
from  1 1.4  of  the  Thorndike  scale  in  system  A  to  14.5  in  system 
F  (see  Table  V)  ;  the  median  quality  for  the  whole  grade  of 
writing  done  "  at  your  usual  rate  "  varies  from  10.3  in  system  A 
to  14.0  in  svstem  u  (see  Table  V). 

In  average  speed  of  the  eighth-grade  writings,  there  is  a  range 
from  system  G  with  37  letters  a  minute  to  system  B  with  67 


^  To  whom  I  am  greatly  indebted  for  permission  to  use  this  material. 
The  ratings  by  the  six  judges  were  also  obtained  by  him. 

29 


30 


Handwriting 


letters  per  minute  in  the  careful  writing,  and,  in  the  writing  at 
one's  usual  rate,  a  range  from  system  G  with  50  letters  per 
minute  to  system  C  with  80.     (See  Table  V.) 


Table    V 
Speed  Irrespective  of  Quality  and  Quality  Irrespective  of  Speed  in 
THE  Case  of  the  Handwriting  of  Seven  School  Systems.     Median 
Results  for  Eighth-Grade  Pupils    (Upper  Figure)   and  Seventh- 
Grade  Pupils  (Lower  Figure). 


School   system 
Letters    per    minute    in 
careful  writing 

A 
61 
46 

B 

67 
48 

C 

66 
62 

D 

51 
46 

E 

48 
43 

F 

47 
48 

G 

37 
26 

Letters    per    minute    in 
'■  natural  "  writing 

79 
68 

7.S 
63 

80 

75 

60 
61 

63 
56 

63 
64 

50 
36 

Quality    (by   T.    scale) 
in   careful   writing 

II. 4 
II. 4 

II. 8 
II. 7 

II. 7 
II. 4 

12.0 
II. 7 

12.3 
I3-0 

14.5 
14.0 

14. 1 
131 

Quality    (by    T.    scale) 
in  natural  writing 

10.3 
10.3 

II. 2 
II. I 

II. 0 
10.6 

II. 7 
II. 3 

II. 6 
12.7 

13-7 
13.0 

14.0 
13.0 

If  we  compare  the  eighth-grade  pupils  of  the  different  schools 

who  wrote  at  roughly  the  same  rates,  they  range  as  shown  in 

Table  VI. 

Table  VI 

Quality  of  Handwriting  at  Roughly  the  Same  Rate  in  Seven  School 

Systems 

Median  Results  for  Eighth-Grade   Pupils 


System 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

G 

At    20-29    words    in    4 

minutes 

14-5 

13-0 

15-4 

14.8 

At  30-39  words 

II-5 

II. 3 

II. 6 

12.3 

12.3 

14-5 

14.2 

At  40-49  words 

II-5 

12.0 

12.0 

II. 8 

12.3 

14.4 

15.3 

At  50-59  words 

II-5 

II. 6 

II. I 

II. I 

II. 6 

13.0 

II. 7 

At  60-69  words 

10.3 

II. 8 

II-5 

II -3 

II. 6 

13-6 

At  70-79  words 

10. 0 

10.8 

II. 3 

Median 

Results 

for  Seventh-G 

rade   Pupils 

System 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

G 

At  10-19  vvords 

13-3 

14-5 

13.5 

At  20-29  words 

12.3 

13-3 

13.0 

13.6 

14.2 

13.0 

At  30'39  words 

II  .0 

II. 8 

12.3 

13-3 

14.2 

13.0 

At  40-49  words 

II. 0 

II. 8 

11.3 

II. 7 

II. 0 

13.3 

II. 8 

At  50-59  words 

10.3 

II. 4 

II. I 

II. 0 

II. 8 

13.0 

At  60-69  vvords 

lO.O 

II -3 

10.5 

10. 0 

II. 4 

II. 8 

At  70-79  words 

g.8 

9.8 

9.9 

That  these  likenesses  and  differences  between  systems  are  not 
due  to  chance  but  are  true  characteristics  of  the  school  systems, 
is  proved  by  the  fact  that  the  measurements  come  from  so  many 
cases  as  to  be  subject  to  only  very  slight  chance  or  accidental 


The  Speed  and  Qualify  of  Handzvriting  31 

errors,  and  also  by  the  slight  differences  found  between  buildings 
or  classes  within  one  system.  For  instance,  of  three  schools 
of  system  F,  the  seventh  grades  of  the  two  most  unlike  differ  in 
quality  at  the  same  rate  by  only  three  tenths  of  a  step,  the  best 
one  being  about  3  per  cent  better  than  the  worst.  Of  three 
schools  of  system  G,  the  seventh  grades  of  the  two  most  unlike 
differ  in  quality  at  the  same  rate  by  only  four  tenths  of  a  step, 
or  4  per  cent.  The  average  dift'erence  of  one  school  from  another 
within  the  same  system  is  little  if  any  over  two  tenths  of  a  step 
or  2  per  cent. 

The  comparison  of  systems  by  the  quality  of  the  handwriting 
at  the  same  rates  is  not,  however,  perfectly  just.  For  in  so 
doing  we  are  comparing  the  more  rapid  writers  of  some  systems 
(especially  G)  with  the  slower  writers  of  other  systems  (especi- 
ally A,  B,  and  C).  Now  in  general  the  more  rapid  writers  of 
a  system  would  write  a  little  better  at  the  average  rate  for  that 
svstem  than  would  the  slower  writers  of  the  same  system.  If, 
for  instance,  all  the  seventh-grade  pupils  of  any  systems  were 
made  to  w^ite  at  dift'erent  speeds  until  for  each  one  a  record  at 
the  rate  of  64  letters  per  second  was  secured,  we  should  find 
that  the  pupils  whose  undirected  rates  were  higher  than  64 
would  at  the  64  rate  do  better  than  those  whose  undirected  rates 
were  below  64. 

Also,  within  the  10-19  o^"  20-29  or  30-39  word  group,  there  are 
prejudicial  dift'erences  betw^een  the  schools.  In  grade  8  of  school 
G,  for  example,  the  20-29  word  group  will  contain  a  larger  per- 
centage of  pupils  writing  at  rate  20-25  than  it  will  in  grade  8  of 
school  F.  In  comparing  a  slow-writing  school  with  a  fast- 
writing  school,  by  the  quality  of  groups  roughly  equal  in  speed, 
we  thus  give  an  unfair  advantage  to  the  slower  writing  school. 

To  make  the  comparison  just  we  would  have  to  find  equiva- 
lents in  quality  for  each  degree  of  superiority  in  speed,  so  as  to 
be  able  to  combine  the  two  into  a  score  for  general  efficiency  in 
handwriting  for  each  individual.  Such  an  investigation  of  the 
exact  relative  values  of  certain  increases  in  speed  and  in  quality 
should  some  time  be  made.  I  have  not  had  time  or  means 
to  make  it  as  yet.  As  our  data  are.  in  the  case  of  the  8th  grade 
pupils,  systems  A,  B,  and  C  can  be  compared  inter  se  for  they 
are  substantially  alike  in  speed.     So  also  can  systems  D,  E,  and 


32  Handwriting 

F.  A,  B,  and  C  can  be  compared  with  D,  E,  and  F  with  only 
slight  chance  of  error  by  taking  the  "  careful  "  work  of  A,  B, 
and  C  and  the  "  natural"  work  of  D,  E,  and  F.  But  the  selection 
of  cases  at  equal  rates  slightly  favors  D,  E,  and  F  at  the  expense 
of  A,  B,  and  C  and  favors  G  at  the  expense  of  all  the  other  six 
systems. 

Of  systems  A,  B,  and  C  in  the  eighth-grade  writing,  A  is  the 
worst  by  about  5  per  cent.  Of  systems  D,  E,  and  F,  F  is  the 
best  by  about  25  per  cent,  D  and  E  being  alike.  F  is  equal  to 
G  in  quality  and  nearly  30  per  cent  superior  in  speed.  Roughly 
estimating  the  equivalence  of  A's  greater  speed  and  F's  superior 
quality,  F  seems  to  be  about  30  per  cent  better  than  A.  A,  B, 
C,  D,  and  E  are  of  about  equal  merit.  The  data  to  support  these 
comparisons  were  given  in  Tables  V  and  VI. 

The  records  from  the  seventh-grade  pupils  give  substantially 
the  same  result  as  those  from  the  eighth-grade  pupils  just  stated. 
A,  B,  C,  D,  and  E  differ  little,  A  being  about  nine  tenths  as 
good  as  the  others.  F  is  about  25  per  cent  better  than  B,  C, 
and  D.  E  is  a  little  better  than  B,  C,  and  D.  F  shows  writing 
as  good  as  G's  at  a  speed  nearly  six  sevenths  greater.  These 
facts  are  derived  from  the  data  of  Table  VI,  an  allowance  being 
made  for  the  two  constant  sources  of  injustice  in  such  data,  and 
from  the  data  of  Table  V,  G  seems,  speed  and  quality  both  being 
taken  into  account,  to  be  little  or  no  better  than  B,  C,  D,  and  E. 

Section  p.  The  Relation  of  Differences  in  Results  to  Differ- 
ences in  Means  and  Methods  of  Teaching  Handwriting 

Not  much  can  be  proved  by  relating  these  differences  to  dif- 
ferences in  means  and  methods  of  teaching  handwriting,  since 
the  number  of  school  systems  studied  is  so  few.  F,  which  is  so 
markedly  superior,  uses  vertical  writing  of  a  special  system 
arranged  by  the  supervisor  of  handwriting,  uses  writing  books, 
devotes  75  minutes  weekly  to  specific  instruction  and  practice  in 
writing  in  grades  5,  6,  and  7  (of  what  is  done  up  to  grade  5, 
I  have  no  report),  and  30  minutes  weekly  in  grade  8.  The 
teachers  in  general  follow  the  same  system  in  writing  on  the 
blackboard. 

The  other  systems  are  about  alike  in  general  merit  in  hand- 
writing,  A,   B,   and   C  gaining   speed   at   a   reasonable  cost   in 


The  Speed  and  Quality  of  Handwriting  33 

quality.  A  and  B  teach  no  fixed  system,  devote  no  time  to  pen- 
manship as  such,  and  permit  the  teachers  to  write  according  to 
any  or  no  system.  C  uses  a  medium  slant  or  intermediate  or 
business  system,  uses  copy  books,  devotes  50  to  60  minutes 
weekly  to  penmanship  as  such,  and  has  the  teachers  use  the 
system  taught  to  the  pupils.  D  uses  a  modified  Spencerian  with 
copy  books,  devotes  50  to  75  minutes  weekly  in  grades  5  and  6, 
and  75  to  100  in  grades  7  and  8,  to  penmanship  as  such,  and  has 
the  teachers  follow  the  system  in  their  own  writing.  E  uses  a 
forward  slant,  and  devotes  100  minutes  in  grade  6,  60  to  90  in 
grade  7,  and  60  in  grade  8.  to  penmanship  as  such. 

System  G  uses  an  intermedial  writing,  devoting  from  60  to 
90  minutes  weekly  to  special  instruction  and  practice  in  grades 
7  and  8.  The  teachers  use  the  same  system  in  their  own  writing 
on  the  blackboard. 

\\'hat  these  facts  do  prove  is :  First,  that  at  least  three  systems 
(C,  D,  and  E)  get  little  or  no  better  results  at  a  time  cost  of 
about  75  minutes  a  week  than  two  systems  (A  and  B)  do  at 
zero  time-cost;  second,  that  one  system  (F)  at  no  greater  time- 
cost  than  C,  D,  and  E  gets  results  about  25  per  cent  better  than 
they  do ;  and  third,  that  practice  for  quality  may  secure  it  only 
at  the  cost  of  speed.  The  teachers  in  A  and  B  are  better  paid 
than  those  in  the  other  cities,  so  that  the  success  of  these  schools 
at  no  time-cost  might  not  be  generally  attainable. 

Leaving  F  out  of  account,  the  dififerences  of  these  school  sys- 
tems in  the  method  of  teaching  handwriting,  in  the  time  devoted 
to  it,  and  in  the  ideals  of  the  system  in  respect  to  it  are  of  incon- 
siderable influence  upon  efficiency.  One  makes  its  pupils  write 
very  well  at  very  slow  rates,  the  others  vary  a  little  in  quality 
with  small  inverse  variations  in  speed.  On  the  whole,  in  spite  of 
the  achievement  of  system  F,  efficiency  in  handwriting  seems, 
like  spelling,  and  unlike  arithmetic,  to  be  under  present  condi- 
tions not  very  much  influenced  by  the  management  of  the  schools. 

Section  10.  Differences  between  Individuals  within  the  Same 
School  System 

We  have  seen  that  the  school  systems,  with  the  exception  of 
F,  differ  little  among  themselves  in  the  efficiency  of  the  hand- 
writing which  they  secure.      Individual  pupils  on  the  contrary 


34  Handzvriting 

do  differ  greatly.  Excluding  system  F,  we  still  find  amongst 
eighth-grade  pupils  a  range  from  a  pupil  writing  only  55  letters 
per  minute  at  quality  7.5  up  to  a  pupil  writing  79  letters  per 
minute  at  quality  15.2.  Of  the  15  eighth-grade  pupils  writing 
at  the  same  rate  (53  words  in  4  minutes)  the  scores  for  quality 
(excluding  system  F)  run  from  9.1  to  14.6. 

The  variation  among  pupils  of  the  same  grade  in  the  rate  of 
writing  of  the  same  quality  is  also  large.  In  the  seventh  grade 
of  system  F,  for  instance,  of  the  writings  of  the  pupil's  usual 
rate  there  were  74  samples  of  from  quality  12.7  to  13.3.  The 
number  of  words  written  in  four  minutes  ranged  from  19  to  87. 
The  87  may  possibly  be  due  to  overtime  writing.  The  next 
highest  case  was  yy,  and  the  next  70.    After  the  two  cases  at  19 

Table    VII 

Relative   Frequencies  of   Different   Speeds   of   Writing  at   Natural 
Rate,  the  Same  Quality  of  Writing  Being  Secured 

Frequencies 
de  G,  7th  grade 


Number 

of  words 

F, 

7th  g 

IS 

17 

19 

2 

21 

3 

5 

2 

7 

I 

9 

4 

31 

2 

3 

4 

5 

3 

7 

5 

9 

3 

41 

3 

3 

5 

5 

5 

7 

2 

9 

4 

51 

0 

3 

4 

5 

5 

7 

0 

9 

5 

61 

3 

3 

3 

5 

0 

7 

I 

9 

I 

Also  1 

[  case  at  77  and  1 

[   at 

87. 

The  Speed  and  Quality  of  Handn'riting  35 

there  is  .a  gap  till  25.  From  25  to  70  there  is  a  fairly  continuous 
distribution.  Allowing  for  the  time  of  reading  the  copy  and 
other  disturbing  factors,  it  still  appears  certain  that  within  the 
same  grade  some  pupils  spend  at  least  three  times  as  long  in 
writing  the  same  amount  at  the  same  quality.  The  facts  in  de- 
tail appear  in  Table  \  II. 

Individual  pupils  within  the  same  grade  then  show  a  range 
of  difference  much  greater  than  that  between  the  fifth  grade  of 
the  worst  system  and  the  eighth  grade  of  the  best. 

Section  11.  The  Relation  amongst  Individuals  between  Speed 
and  Quality 

Rapidity  is  in  and  of  itself  a  good  sign.  If  we  know  nothing 
about  one  score  or  so  of  pupils  save  that  they  are  rapid  writers 
and  nothing  about  another  score  save  that  they  are  slow-  writers, 
we  can  prophesy  that  at  the  same  rate  the  former  group  will  on 
the  average  do  writing  of  a  higher  quality. 

Thus  there  were  20  seventh-grade  pupils  in  system  F  who, 
in  writing  naturally,  varied  from  29  to  64  w'ords  in  four  minutes, 
but  who  wrote  just  the  same  number  of  words  (33)  in  the  test 
in  careful  writing.  The  naturally  slower  ten  showed  at  the  rate 
of  33  a  median  quality  of  14.5,  the  more  rapid  ten  a  quality  of 
14.8.  This  occurred  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  for  the  slower  ten 
writing  at  a  rate  of  33  was  more  like  their  usual  habits.  It  is 
to  be  expected  that,  if  all  had  been  made  to  write  at,  say.  73 
words  in  four  minutes,  the  difference  would  have  been  greater. 
Dividing  three  similar  sets  each  into  a  slower  and  a  faster  half 
we  find  for  the  naturally  slower  half  a  median  quality  of  13.9 
and  for  the  faster  half  a  quality  of  14.2  when  both  wrote  at  an 
identical  rate. 

Of  course  the  same  pupil  will  not  write  as  well  at  a  rapid  as 
at  a  moderate  rate,  and  if  we  mix  pupils  from  a  school  in  which 
rapidity  is  gained  at  the  cost  of  quality  w^itli  pupils  from  a 
school  in  which  quality  is  gained  at  the  cost  of  speed  the  rapid 
writers  will  seem  to  be  the  poor  writers.  But,  in  and  of  itself, 
rapidity  is  a  sign  of  ability  which  if  directed  toward  quality  could 
secure  high  results  in  that  instead. 


36  Handwriting 

Section  12.  The  Relation  of  the  Quality  of  Slow  Writing 
to  the  Quality  of  the  Rapid  Writing  by  the  Same  individual 

Amongst  school  children  there  is  a  close  relation  between  the 
quality  of  writing  at  a  natural  rate  and  that  at  a  slower  rate. 
For  instance,  let  us  take  the  26  children  in  grades  6  and  7  of  one 
school  of  system  F,  who  write  at  a  rate  of  33-37  inclusive  in  the 
first  test  and  at  a  rate  of  52-60  inclusive  in  the  second  test  and 
ask  whether  high  rank  for  quality  of  writing  at  a  slow  rate  in- 
volves high  rank  for  quality  of  writing  at  a  speed  some  60  per 
cent  greater.  It  does,  the  average  correlation  for  three  groups 
like  the  one  described  being  about  .6.  Part  of  this  correlation  is 
due  to  the  differences  of  the  individuals  in  maturity,  but  this 
spurious  correlation  is  offset  by  the  attenuation  due  to  the  chance 
variations  in  the  measures  related.  Of  course,  the  same  relation 
is  not  thereby  proved  to  hold  also  between  quality  of  writing  at 
one's  natural  rate  and  quality  of  writing  at  a  rate  much  slozver 
than  it.  But  I  believe  that  it  would,  and  that,  although  writing 
at  one  rate  is  not  identical  with  writing  at  a  different  rate,  writ- 
ing is,  over  a  wide  range  of  rates,  so  similar  a  function  that  train- 
ing which  improves  its  quality  at  any  one  rate  may  be  expected 
to  be  of  benefit  at  many  others.  This  does  not  of  course  make  it 
any  less  desirable  to  practice  handwriting  at  the  rate  at  which 
one  will  have  to  write,  but  it  does  make  the  custom  of  slow, 
elaborate  writing  less  pernicious  than  it  might  be  were  the  habits 
at  different  rates  almost  or  quite  independent  of  one  another. 

Section  /j.     Miscellaneous  Comments 

The  Effect  of  Reduction  from  a  Pupil's  Natural  Rate  upon  the 
Quality  of  his  Handwriting 

The  gain  in  quality  which  a  pupil  secures  by  writing  more 
slowly  than  his  natural  rate  is  not  great.  Sixty-one  pupils,  whose 
natural  rate  was  from  52  to  58  words  in  four  minutes,  by  reduc- 
ing their  speed  to  32  to  36  words  in  four  minutes,  that  is,  by 
writing  only  two  thirds  as  fast,  gained  on  the  average  in  quality 
less  than  one  step  of  the  scale.  The  loss  in  quality  which  a  pupil 
suffers  by  writing  more  rapidly  than  his  natural  rate  has  not 
been  measured. 


The  Speed  and  Quality  of  Handwriting  37 

The  Significance  of  the  Inferiority  of  Adults'  Handwriting 

That  children  in  the  last  two  grammar  grades  can  write  so 
much  better  than  adult  women-teachers  do  customarily  write  is 
an  important  fact.  Considering  it  in  connection  with  the  fact 
that  above  quality  11  there  is  very  little  difference  in  legibility, 
one  is  tempted  to  advocate  the  heresy  that  children  are  taught 
to  write  too  well.  I  personally  do  advocate  it.  If  school  boards 
would  furnish,  for  the  use  of  children  electing  "  writing  "  as  a 
study  in  the  last  two  grammar  grades,  typewriting  machines,  I 
should  certainly  advise  the  transfer  to  typewriting  of  a  child  in 
these  grades  whose  writing  at  60  letters  a  minute  consistently 
reaches  quality  13.  For,  the  amount  of  practice  required  to  ad- 
vance such  a  pupil  to  quality  16  at  a  rate  of  75  letters  a  minute 
would  much  more  than  suffice  to  advance  him  to  substantially 
errorless  machine  writing  at  that  rate.  The  value  now  attached 
to  the  high  qualities  of  handwriting  is,  of  course,  largely  ficti- 
tious. Employers  who  can  afiford  such  high  qualities  of  writing, 
buy  machines  to  produce  them.  For  writing  cash  checks,  simple 
book-entries,  labels,  and  the  like,  a  good  plain  hand  or  our 
quality  12  is  entirely  adequate.  For  attaining  the  higher  qualities 
(15-18)  the  machine  is  a  more  economical  tool  than  the  pen, 
and  in  my  opinion  should  be  provided  by  those  schools  which  re- 
quire such  qualities.  Further,  such  qualities  should,  in  my  opin- 
ion, be  required  of  children  in  the  elementary  schools,  only  when 
they  have  elected  writing  as  a  vocational  subject.  For  the  data 
from  the  adult  women-teachers  make  it  practically  certain  that 
the  ability  to  write  above  quality  14  will  not  be  exercised  in  life 
except  as  a  part  of  a  clerical  trade.  If  very,  very  few  teachers 
find  it  worth  while  to  maintain  qualities  above  14.  it  can  hardly 
be  supposed  that  it  will  be  worth  while  for  mechanics,  house- 
keepers, farmers,  and  dressmakers  to  do  so. 

It  seems  likely  also  that  handwriting  has  been,  and  is,  a  case 
of  a  common  practical  fallacy,  which  may  be  called  "  learning  for 
learning's  sake."  When  certain  facts  or  acts  of  skill  are  teach- 
able, teachers  tend  to  teach  them  regardless  of  any  intelligible 
service  performed  by  them  other  than  the  doubtful  one  of  "  dis- 
ciplining "  the  mind  or  hand  or  eye.  Since,  for  instance,  arith- 
metical methods  of  extracting  cube  root  have  been  learned  by 


3^  Handwriting 

teachers  and  can  be  taught  to  children,  we  teach  them,  regardless 
of  the  fact  that  no  person  in  his  senses  would  extract  a  cube 
root  in  that  manner.  Similarly  it  is  doubtful  if  any  intelligent 
person  would  (except  to  become  a  teacher  of  handwriting!)  pay 
the  necessary  time-cost  to  acquire  the  ability  to  write  at  75  letters 
or  over  per  minute  at  quality  17  or  better.  He  would,  of  course, 
learn  to  typewrite  instead.  And  if  an  intelligent  person  has  been 
artificially  induced  to  get  that  ability  in  school,  he  promptly  loses 
it  thereafter. 

The   Relation  between  an  Individual's   Ability  in  Handwriting 
and  his  General  Intellectual  Ability 

I  have  measured  the  correlation  between  scholarship  and 
quality  of  handwriting  in  the  case  of  adult  women  students  in 
Teachers  College.  These  students  comprise  in  the  main  teachers 
of  from  I  to  15  years  of  experience  who  have  left  their  work 
temporarily  for  further  academic  and  professional  training.  The 
academic  marks  represent  intellect  more  often  than  college  marks 
in  general  do,  because  what  intellect  a  student  has  is  more  likely 
to  be  devoted  to  scholarship  in  a  professional  school  than  in  a 
college.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  achievement  in  professional 
courses  for  teachers  is  probably  aided  by  experience  in  teaching. 
Finally,  the  standards  of  marking  vary  with  instructors,  and 
probably  somewhat  with  departments,  so  that  two  students,  each 
taking  the  bulk  of  her  work  in  some  one  department,  may  for 
equal  scholarship  receive  dififerent  average  grades. 

The  marks  for  quality  of  handwriting  on  the  other  hand  are 
very  exact.  For  each  student  I  have  from  one  to  three  judg- 
ments in  each  of  ten  samples  taken  at  random  from  her  writing, 
—  in  all  a  total  for  each  student  of  nineteen  judgments.  The 
marks  for  handwriting  have  in  fact  probable  average  deviations 
of  the  true  from  the  obtained  averages  of  only  about  3  per  cent. 

GeselP  has  claimed  that  in  children  there  is  a  high  positive 
correlation  amongst  individuals  between  accuracy  of  handwrit- 
ing and  intellectual  ability.  His  own  data,  however,  really  show 
a  correlation  of  only  about  .3,  and  it  seems  probable  that  what 


'  Accuracy  in  Handwriting,  as  Related  to  School  Intelligence  and  Sex. 
Am.  Jour,  of  Psy.     Vol.   17,  pp.  394-405. 


The  Speed  and  Quality  of  Handwriting  39 

correlation  there  is  is  due  in  large  measure  to  the  greater  zeal  of 
the  brighter  pupils  to  excel  in  all  respects,  rather  than  to  any  fun- 
damental close  correspondence  of  intellect  with  motor  ability. 
The  records  of  our  adults  add  to  the  evidence  that  ability  in 
thought  and  ability  in  movements  are,  in  adults,  only  very  slightly 
related.  The  correlation  between  scholarship  grade  and  quality 
of  handwriting  is  zero.  For  21  individuals  taken  at  random  from 
the  best  third  of  the  writers,  the  median  grade  in  scholarship  was 
about  exactly  C  +.  For  22  individuals  taken  at  random  from 
the  worst  third  in  writing  the  median  grade  in  scholarship  was  a 
little  above  B — . 

Legibility  as  a  Factor  in  the  Quality  of  Handwriting 

Legibility  is  a  word  with  many  possible  meanings.  In  one 
of  its  meanings  the  legibility  of  writing  may  be  measured  by  the 
distance  at  which  it  can  be  read  with  a  given  accuracy  and  rate. 
In  another  of  its  meanings  it  can  be  measured  by  the  rate  at 
which  a  sample  can  be  read  at  a  given  distance  and  with  a  given 
accuracy.  Still  finer  discrimination  might  perhaps  be  made  be- 
tween samples  of  handwriting  equally  legible  by  these  two  tests, 
by  a  further  test  of  the  degree  of  fatigue  or  of  discomfort  re- 
sulting from  reading  them.  Even  the  subjective  measurement 
of  legibility  by  the  combined  opinions  of  competent  judges  is 
useful. 

Legibility  may  be  tested  in  any  one  of  these  ways  in  the  case 
of  single  letters  or  groups  of  letters  cut  from  a  sample,  of  words 
alone  or  in  a  random  order,  and  in  the  case  of  words  in  a  sensible 
context  where  what  is  before  and  after  the  word  helps  one  to 
read  it.  Also,  legibility  for  a  tyro  at  reading  and  for  a  trained 
reader  may  well  be  different  things,  requiring  separate  investiga- 
tion. 

I  have  made  rough  measurements  of  the  legibility  of  the  dif- 
ferent qualities  of  the  scales  for  children's  and  adults'  writing, 
but  the  results  are  too  meagre  for  publication  at  this  time.  They 
show,  as  might  be  foreseen,  that  the  higher  grades  of  quality 
differ  little  in  the  legibility  of  the  words  in  a  context  for  a 
trained  reader,  but  correlate  fairly  closely  with  the  legibility  of 
the  letters  singly. 


40  Handwriting 

Section  14.  A  Scale  of  Children's  Writing,  Based  on  Equally 
Often  Noted  Differences  in  Quality 

In  section  2  the  fact  was  noted  that  a  series  of  samples,  a,  h, 
c,  d,  etc.,  could  be  found  such  that  when  each  was  compared 
with  the  others  a  was  judged  better  than  h  as  often  as  h  was 
judged  better  than  c,  and  so  on.  It  was  pointed  out  that,  if  the 
per  cents  of  judgments  of  a-h,  b-c,  etc.,  are  under  100,  over  50, 
and  equal,  the  samples  a,  h,  c,  etc.,  may  be  regarded  as  differing 
by  equal  steps,  equal  differences  meaning  equally  often  noticed 
differences.  A  scale  constructed  on  this  principle  differs  from 
one  constructed  on  the  principle  that  dift'erences  judged  equal 
by  the  combined  opinion  of  competent  judges  are  equal,  chiefly 
in  respect  to  the  lower  qualities  of  handwriting.  The  difference 
between  lower  qualities  that  is  noticed  as  often  as  a  given  dif- 
ference between  higher  qualities  is  regarded  by  competent  judges 
as  a  smaller  difference  than  the  latter. 

The  reasons  for  this  are  interesting  and  the  general  problem 
of  the  choice  between  "  judged  equal  "  and  "  noticed  equally 
often  "  as  the  basis  for  equality  of  units  in  psychological,  educa- 
tional and  sociological  scales  is  of  very  great  importance.  But 
much  more  elaborate  investigations  than  I  have  been  able  to 
make  are  necessary  for  any  adequate  discussion  of  the  problem, 
even  in  the  case  of  handwriting  alone. 

I  therefore  simply  present  the  scale  as  derived  by  this  second 
method  for  the  use  of  those  who  prefer  it.     The  facts  are  that: 

Sample  125  is,  in  direct  comparison  with  sample  132,  judged  to  be 
better  by  81  per  cent    of  42  judges. 

132  is  similarly  judged  better  than  58  bv  81%   of  42  judges 

58  "  "  "           10  b'y  79% 

10  "  "  "             I  bv  79% 

I  "  "  "           55  by  79% 

55  "  "  "           52  by  77%         91 

52  "  "  "            44  by  83.5%       " 

44  "  "  "            34  by  79% 

34  "  .         "  "51  by  78% 

51  "  "  "            22  by  80% 

22  "  "  "          126  by  74%          42 

Samples  126,  22,  51,  34,  44,  52.  and  so  on,  thus  have  approxi- 
mately the  values  x,  x  -\-  k,  x  +  2k,  x  +  3^,  x  +  4k,  respectively, 
where  jt-  =  the  difference  in  quality  between  sample  126  and  zero 


iVrrL- 


?-? 


HI  j 


I'll 


i-r  1= 

T     r 


f      3  P 


•    • 


The  Speed  and  Quality  of  Handwriting  41 

quality,  and  k  =  such  a  difference  in  quality  as  is  noted  as  dif- 
ferent by  competent  judges  eight  times  out  of  ten.  K  is,  on  the 
average,  equal  to  i  of  steps  7  to  17  of  scale  A,  but  the  value  of 
X  remains  undetermined.  If  a  series  was  found  ranging  from 
a  sample  arbitrarily  taken  as  of  zero  merit  (say,  sample  140)  to 
sample  126,  such  that  the  difference  between  any  two  successive 
samples  was  noted  eight  times  out  of  ten,  the  number  of  steps 
in  this  series  would  give  the  value  of  x  in  terms  of  k.  X  is 
probably  between  8^'  and  gk.  Since,  however,  the  calculation 
of  the  distance  of  x  from  0  by  other  methods  worthy  of  con- 
sideration makes  it  as  low  as  6k  or  even  5^,  I  shall  use  jk  as 
the  distance  of  sample  126  from  0.  Anyone  preferring  to  adhere 
rigidly  to  "  noticed  equally  often  "  as  the  sole  test  of  equality 
of  difference  may  use  19.5,  18.5,  17.5,  16.5,  etc.,  in  place  of  the 
18,  17,  16,  15,  etc.,  used  in  the  scale. 


J ob...i... .:..:•.-.    tor 

:\Iend  by..^ TimeZl:..;:..::....' ..1.::/..:^. 


[Unusual  mending  time  charged  extra]  

Stab  by-/-'-^-No.Sect.-4../r'....Sew  by....A 
Before  sewing.Score.— Press... .Strip  Sect.... 

[Scoring   is   necessary    on    stiff   or   lieavy    jiaper] 

Rate  

This  book  boinid  by  Pacific  Libniry  Binding  Com- 
pany, Los  Angeles,  specialists  in  Library  Binding. 
Work  and  materials  furnislied  are  guai-anteed  to  wear 
indefinitely  to  satisfaction  of  purchaser,  and  any 
defects  appearing  in  either  will  be  made  good  with- 
out additional  charge.     "Bound  to  wear."  i 

i 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angdes 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  sumped  below. 


MLU)    MARIS 


AN       *    ^W^O 


SE 


^^5 


m 


2Q0S 


y\ 


id 

54 

l62 


315 


ir.orna.ii<.t;    - 


UCLA-Young   Research    Library 

LB1590   .T39 

y 

II  nil  II  III  II III  '11  miiii  III  III  II  111 


L  009   608   005   6 


)&AL  SCHOOl 

3.  CALUOftNiA 


V 


y 


